What do you think is Mark McGwire chance at the record?
TaserLUV
After watching this slugger since he was a rookie I have to think he is
definately the most powerful in terms of hitting towering homeruns ever. I know
his average isn't that of Ruth or some of the other great sluggers but when he
connects the ball travels well beyond the fences in any stadium. My question is
do you think he is the most powerful homerun hitter in terms of average
distance of his homeruns or is he in some way benefited by "juiced" balls that
are used today or water down talent of players produce by expansion of the
leagues? And what do you think is he chances of breaking Maris single season
record this year or in the next few years to come ?
Andrew Martin Symonds
I think that McGwire has a shot at the record, but it'll have to
be in the next two to three years if he wants to do it. Regardless if he
breaks it or not, I think Griffey will hit more than Maris did or Mcgwire
will. He's got youth on his side, and he's got a much sweeter swing. I
think both sluggers have a shot at it, but Griffey will surpass whatever
numbers McGwire may put up! Ripper!
Larry Gene Gariepy Jr.
TaserLUV wrote:
>
> After watching this slugger since he was a rookie I have to think he is
> definately the most powerful in terms of hitting towering homeruns ever. I know
> his average isn't that of Ruth or some of the other great sluggers but when he
> connects the ball travels well beyond the fences in any stadium. My question is
> do you think he is the most powerful homerun hitter in terms of average
> distance of his homeruns or is he in some way benefited by "juiced" balls that
> are used today or water down talent of players produce by expansion of the
> leagues? And what do you think is he chances of breaking Maris single season
> record this year or in the next few years to come ?
Consider that McGwire hit 58 HR. That is roughly two per week for the
entire season. Now consider that McGwire also went THREE WEEKS without
hitting a single homerun! His last two weeks in Oakland, and his first
week in the NL were total busts. But of course, who can fault a guy for
struggling when he didn't know from one day to the next whether or not
he would be playing in the same city he woke up in.
So give him his 2 HR per week over that span, and that gives him 64.
Also consider that he hit 24 HR in St. Louis in 174 AB, about 7.25 AB
per HR. At that pace, he would need 450 AB to get 62HR. So obviously
there is a lot of room for slack. Furthermore, he didn't exactly have
any kind of protection in the St. Louis lineup. Pitchers pitched to him
because there was never anyone on base, so his HRs, while majestic,
still counted for just one run. The rest of St. Louis' lineup should
certainly be stronger this season.
So given these facts, it hardly seems fair to McGwire to say that he has
anything less than a good chance. The biggest factor will be media
scrutiny. McGwire hates talking about the Maris chase. But then again,
he hit 14 HRs last September, in the midst of a rediculous media
circus. So he certainly can handle the pressure.
I would love nothing more than to see him do it. I think baseball fans
in general would like to see this record come down. Maris has always
been a sort of annoyance (read any history of his chase of Babe Ruth in
1961). Babe Ruth obviously deserved to own the single season record,
but Maris? The guy didn't even hit 300 HRs over his entire career, so
more than 1/5th of them came in a single season! If McGwire could take
Maris down, then the record would once again be in the hands of someone
who "deserves" it.
Another fun McGwire fact: if McGwire has another McGwire-like season
this year, he can pass Babe Ruth and become the All-Time leader in
HR/AB.
Larry Gariepy
Dartmouth College
gar...@cs.dartmouth.edu
Eramon1
Larry Gariepy of Dartmouth irritated me by saying:
>I would love nothing more than to see him do it. I think baseball fans
>in general would like to see this record come down. Maris has always
>been a sort of annoyance (read any history of his chase of Babe Ruth in
>1961). Babe Ruth obviously deserved to own the single season record,
>but Maris? The guy didn't even hit 300 HRs over his entire career, so
>more than 1/5th of them came in a single season! If McGwire could take
>Maris down, then the record would once again be in the hands of someone
>who "deserves" it.
>
>
Grrrrrrrrrrrr....
That's the kind of post that makes me glad I slacked off in my senior year in
high school so the Ivy League colleges wouldn't take me!
Ty Cobb was fiercer than Rickey Henderson and Lou Brock. Maybe Cobb deserves
the stolen base record back.
Walter Johnson pitched in flannel uniforms. Maybe he "deserves" the career
strikeout record back.
The truth is Maris was a player who had two big years and one of them included
the greatest number of home runs hit in A SINGLE SEASON!!, Larry, which is why
it's the record for MOST HOME RUNS in A SINGLE SEASON!!!
Which is also why Maris does deserve the record...because he's the guy who
actually did it.
-Eric Ramon
Portland
David Marc Nieporent
In <19980221192...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Eramon1 <era...@aol.com> claimed:
>Larry Gariepy of Dartmouth irritated me by saying:
>>I would love nothing more than to see him do it. I think baseball fans
>>in general would like to see this record come down. Maris has always
>>been a sort of annoyance (read any history of his chase of Babe Ruth in
>>1961). Babe Ruth obviously deserved to own the single season record,
>>but Maris? The guy didn't even hit 300 HRs over his entire career, so
>>more than 1/5th of them came in a single season! If McGwire could take
>>Maris down, then the record would once again be in the hands of someone
>>who "deserves" it.
>Grrrrrrrrrrrr....
>That's the kind of post that makes me glad I slacked off in my senior year in
>high school so the Ivy League colleges wouldn't take me!
Dartmouth is a safety school.
>Ty Cobb was fiercer than Rickey Henderson and Lou Brock. Maybe Cobb deserves
>the stolen base record back.
>Walter Johnson pitched in flannel uniforms. Maybe he "deserves" the career
>strikeout record back.
>The truth is Maris was a player who had two big years and one of them included
>the greatest number of home runs hit in A SINGLE SEASON!!, Larry, which is why
>it's the record for MOST HOME RUNS in A SINGLE SEASON!!!
>Which is also why Maris does deserve the record...because he's the guy who
>actually did it.
Sure, but you understand what he means. Yes, Maris had another big
season, but not another big HR season. Ruth is the HR guy; Maris is a guy
who fluked into a record.
Now Cobb deserves the hit record over Rose. (ducking.)
--
David M. Nieporent How about that! I looked something up!
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu These books behind me don't just make the
1L - St. John's School of Law office look good, they're filled with
useful legal tidbits just like that! - L Hutz
James Weisberg
In article <6cnc3a$q...@pluto.njcc.com>,
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Sure, but you understand what he means. Yes, Maris had another big
>season, but not another big HR season. Ruth is the HR guy; Maris is a guy
>who fluked into a record.
>
>Now Cobb deserves the hit record over Rose. (ducking.)
If I take that statement to have any degree of sincerity,
then for the same reason he deserves the SB record as well.
There's no way Rickey Henderson would have caught his career
totals if:
1) they played 162 game schedules
2) they played many fewer double headers
3) they had form-fitting pads that actually worked.
4) there was no WWI
5) conditions as a whole were better
6) Cobb didn't have to spend prolonged periods of
time holding out for money against Navin.
As awesome as he was, if factors were simply such that
he got into more games over his long career, he would have
realistically put up career totals for hits, SBs, runs
scored, doubles, triples, and rbis beyond approach for anyone
succeding him.
--
World's Greatest Living Poster.
James Weisberg
In article <6cnvjm$iv9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
Gregory Bunimovich <gbun...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
>Here we go again. As much as I'd like to resist, I just can't.
Well, I don't really want to get embroiled in a long
argument here because there's much work to be done on
this HOF debate. But I'm prepared to back up my assertions
here.
>Rickey currently has 1231 stolen bases (and of course he's not done yet),
>while Cobb finished with 891 (Thanks Sean Lahman). That's a difference of
>340, or over 38% of Cobb's total. That's a huge difference. Surely you don't
>really believe that the factors you bring below would make that huge a
>difference.
Well, yes, I do believe that, which is why I brought it up.
>: 1) they played 162 game schedules
>
>A difference of 5%. Something, but not all that much considering the 38%
>difference is number of stolen bases.
Worth about 50 SBs right there.
>: 2) they played many fewer double headers
>
>Any evidence that this decreased the number of stolen bases? I can see the
>logic, though, if you're tired after playing for a long time you're less
>likely to steal a base. A minor effect.
Well, they played a lot of double headers though --
sometimes back to back to back. It's not just that Cobb
would get tired to steal that day, but that he might
not even play or he might be darn tired for games
after that.
>: 3) they had form-fitting pads that actually worked.
>
>No idea how to evaluate this. Again, though, I'd guess minor effect at most.
This was the most major effect! Cobb ran without pads, as
they bunched up and slowed him down. He revolutionized base
stealing as we know it. Other players got by with the fairly
crude pads they had and didn't suffer much. Cobb slid very
hard to one side of the bag or the other, just hooking the
bag with his foot. The abrasions which he suffered as a
result were horrendous. They cost him many SBs and games
played. After some games, his uniform literally had to be
pealed off him as blood and puss glued the uniform to his
raw skin. Rickey Henderson never dealt with anything like
this. Cobb even wound up in the hospital once when his leg
became seriously infected.
>: 4) there was no WWI
>
>So he missed a little playing time. Not much. Rickey missed more from the
>strikes of 1981 and 1994/5.
Yes. Just making a point, however. One of many.
>: 5) conditions as a whole were better
>
>Impossible to evaluate this extremely general statement, so I won't even try.
Medical conditions, playing conditions, hazing conditions,
sleeping/living conditions, traveling conditions, geneal health
conditions, etc, etc, etc.
Cobb missed a boatload of games due to all this.
Contrary to what many people believe, he wasn't much of
a troublemaker on the field. He played harder than anyone
but once he was in a game, he rarely got tossed. However,
many of the prolonged injuries he suffered, both mental
and physical could have been avoided either entirely
altogether or severely limited with the proper conditions.
>: 6) Cobb didn't have to spend prolonged periods of
>: time holding out for money against Navin.
>
>He didn't have to. No one forced him. Unlike Rickey, who was forced by the
>players' association to hold out during the strikes.
No, he didn't *have* to. But he did because he was
getting seriously underpaid at first. Navin was spending
gobs of money increasing the size of his field after
three straight pennants and Cobb wasn't getting paid
what he felt due. Until he signed a 3yr contract with
Navin, something never done in Tiger history, the
annual holdout sequence was common. Cobb sought to
get rid of the stipulation in all ballplayer contracts
that if he was hurt for any reason, the club could
cancel his services 10 days afterwards. Earlier
Navin had refused to pay any of Cobbs medical bills,
forcing him to take care of his own. Later, Navin
also had Cobb's personal telegrams forwarded to him
first. Basically the guy was an asshole and dealing
with him cost Cobb games due to contractual negotiations
and earlier on, for health reasons as the club was
too cheap to pay for him and Cobb didn't have any
money to take care of himself properly.
Again, none of these things did Rickey Henderson
have to deal with. If you don't believe Cobb could
have made up the 340 SBs, then we disagree. But if
you think Henderson could have stolen 1231 and rising
back then, you're crazy! What Cobb achieved under
those conditions was amazing.
Gregory Bunimovich
James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
: In article <6cnc3a$q...@pluto.njcc.com>,
: David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
: >Sure, but you understand what he means. Yes, Maris had another big
: >season, but not another big HR season. Ruth is the HR guy; Maris is a guy
: >who fluked into a record.
: >
: >Now Cobb deserves the hit record over Rose. (ducking.)
: If I take that statement to have any degree of sincerity,
: then for the same reason he deserves the SB record as well.
: There's no way Rickey Henderson would have caught his career
: totals if:
Here we go again. As much as I'd like to resist, I just can't.
Rickey currently has 1231 stolen bases (and of course he's not done yet),
while Cobb finished with 891 (Thanks Sean Lahman). That's a difference of
340, or over 38% of Cobb's total. That's a huge difference. Surely you don't
really believe that the factors you bring below would make that huge a
difference.
: 1) they played 162 game schedules
A difference of 5%. Something, but not all that much considering the 38%
difference is number of stolen bases.
: 2) they played many fewer double headers
Any evidence that this decreased the number of stolen bases? I can see the
logic, though, if you're tired after playing for a long time you're less
likely to steal a base. A minor effect.
: 3) they had form-fitting pads that actually worked.
No idea how to evaluate this. Again, though, I'd guess minor effect at most.
: 4) there was no WWI
So he missed a little playing time. Not much. Rickey missed more from the
strikes of 1981 and 1994/5.
: 5) conditions as a whole were better
Impossible to evaluate this extremely general statement, so I won't even try.
: 6) Cobb didn't have to spend prolonged periods of
: time holding out for money against Navin.
He didn't have to. No one forced him. Unlike Rickey, who was forced by the
players' association to hold out during the strikes.
Greg
Larry Gene Gariepy Jr.
Eramon1 wrote:
>
> Larry Gariepy of Dartmouth irritated me by saying:
>
> >I would love nothing more than to see him do it. I think baseball fans
> >in general would like to see this record come down. Maris has always
> >been a sort of annoyance (read any history of his chase of Babe Ruth in
> >1961). Babe Ruth obviously deserved to own the single season record,
> >but Maris? The guy didn't even hit 300 HRs over his entire career, so
> >more than 1/5th of them came in a single season! If McGwire could take
> >Maris down, then the record would once again be in the hands of someone
> >who "deserves" it.
> >
> >
>
> Grrrrrrrrrrrr....
>
> That's the kind of post that makes me glad I slacked off in my senior year in
> high school so the Ivy League colleges wouldn't take me!
>
> the stolen base record back.
>
> Walter Johnson pitched in flannel uniforms. Maybe he "deserves" the career
> strikeout record back.
>
> The truth is Maris was a player who had two big years and one of them included
> the greatest number of home runs hit in A SINGLE SEASON!!, Larry, which is why
> it's the record for MOST HOME RUNS in A SINGLE SEASON!!!
>
> Which is also why Maris does deserve the record...because he's the guy who
> actually did it.
>
> Portland
Wow, no need to get personal, Portland!! Rather than re-flame, let me
explain what
I meant. Of course Maris "deserves" the record in the sense that he did
it. I was
not saying that I personally want to strip Maris of his record because
it was a
fluke. That is rediculous. Note my parenthetical remark referring to
reading
"any history of his chase of Babe Ruth". Yankee fans in 1961 didn't
want Roger
Maris to break their beloved Ruth's record. While there is no true
"asterisk"
next to Maris' name in the record books, most Yankee fans were content
to believe
that Maris only broke Ruth's record because of the season being extended
to 162
games. The fact that Maris hit #61 on the last day of the season would
even
bear this out. None of us know what this was like. We have not lived
to
see a superstar of Babe Ruth's caliber set an "unbreakable" record, live
with
it for 30 years, and then have someone like Roger Maris come out of
nowhere and
break it. My intent here was just to give my impression of one reason
that I
felt might want to see the record fall. Note the phrase "I think
baseball fans
in general would like to see this record come down."
I'm sorry that I did not literally say "Hey, I am not speaking for
myself, but
rather giving my impression of one reason why baseball fans might like
to
see the record be broken." I felt that my introduction, and the fact
that
"deserves" is in quotes would serve to indicate my point. Apparently,
when you
slacked off your senior year, you missed an important lesson in
interpretting
other people's writing.
So what is this crap about slamming Dartmouth and the other Ivy League
schools?
Why don't you cut out the knee-jerk flame garbage. If my facts are
wrong, then
correct me. If you don't agree with my opinion, let me know. But to
take a
remark like this and turn in into an insult against me, my school, and
my
CONFERENCE, well perhaps that says more about why the Ivies didn't take
you than slacking off your senior year. Everyone knows your senior year
grades
don't matter anyway.
Larry Gariepy
ps. I noticed you didn't say what college you _were_ from.
JEarls41
In article <34EFE7E0...@cs.dartmouth.edu>, "Larry Gene Gariepy Jr."
<gar...@cs.dartmouth.edu> writes:
>
> While there is no true "asterisk"
>next to Maris' name in the record books, most Yankee fans were content to
>believethat Maris only broke Ruth's record because of the season being
extended
>to 162 games. The fact that Maris hit #61 on the last day of the season would
>even bear this out. None of us know what this was like. We have not lived
>to see a superstar of Babe Ruth's caliber set an "unbreakable" record, live
>with it for 30 years, and then have someone like Roger Maris come out of
>nowhere and break it. My intent here was just to give my impression of one
>reason that I felt might want to see the record fall. Note the phrase "I
think
>baseball fans in general would like to see this record come down."
Larry,
Maybe there is a typo here, but there is still some confusion.
1- Reading the first part of your post, you seem to be very much in the "Why
did it have to be Maris?" camp.
2- Later, you speak in terms of "baseball fans in general", or, in fact, as
spokesman FOR them, and I'm not sure where your opinion leaves off or not.
Certainly, a lot of us make sweeping statements on behalf of "fans", and I
think "Most baseball fans" agree on a lot of things. I don't think your
feelings about Maris are one of those topics, though.
I like the unique quality of Maris and his remarkable season -- even though
people forget he was the 1960 MVP as well (although he might not have been an
especially good choice.) . Perhaps because it happened in our lifetime, or
perhaps because other than the season extension, the record is not "tainted" in
any way (as Hack Wilson's RBI record might be by juiced ball and the batting
records of the entire NL in 1930), I honor Maris's record. There is something
very powerful and compelling about the Maris story to me.
If and when someone breaks 61, especially if it is an American Leaguer, Maris
will become a footnote faster than anyone in baseball history. Until then, I
love to look at what Maris achieved that year.
I'll admit I feel no such loyalty towards Owen Wilson, Earl Webb, or even Hack
Wilson. I'd love to see Cobb or Crawford have the triples record, any huge
NUMBER of line drive hitters have the doubles record, and Gehrig or Greenberg
or another huge number of hitters have the RBI record.
If Yankee fans (if you are one) still feel this way about Maris, think of what
he went through in 1961. And he still hit 20 HR's after August 1 to break the
record.
Joe Earls
Joe Earls Tantasqua Regional HS/University of Mass
Keith Merida
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@pluto.njcc.com> wrote in article
<6cnc3a$q...@pluto.njcc.com>...
>
> >>I would love nothing more than to see him do it. I think baseball fans
> >>in general would like to see this record come down. Maris has always
> >>been a sort of annoyance (read any history of his chase of Babe Ruth in
> >>1961). Babe Ruth obviously deserved to own the single season record,
> >>but Maris? The guy didn't even hit 300 HRs over his entire career, so
> >>more than 1/5th of them came in a single season! If McGwire could take
> >>Maris down, then the record would once again be in the hands of someone
> >>who "deserves" it.
>
> >Grrrrrrrrrrrr....
> >That's the kind of post that makes me glad I slacked off in my senior
year in
> >high school so the Ivy League colleges wouldn't take me!
>
>
deserves
> >the stolen base record back.
> >Walter Johnson pitched in flannel uniforms. Maybe he "deserves" the
career
> >strikeout record back.
> >The truth is Maris was a player who had two big years and one of them
included
> >the greatest number of home runs hit in A SINGLE SEASON!!, Larry, which
is why
> >it's the record for MOST HOME RUNS in A SINGLE SEASON!!!
> >Which is also why Maris does deserve the record...because he's the guy
who
> >actually did it.
>
> season, but not another big HR season. Ruth is the HR guy; Maris is a
guy
> who fluked into a record.
>
> Now Cobb deserves the hit record over Rose. (ducking.)
Even if you gave Cobb the 60-odd hits he needed to get the hit record back,
I could just see the headlines in Cincinnati in September 2010, when Pete
gets reinstated and Marge brings him back as a player-manager, at age 70.
"Pete Promises Record Today".
"I know I'm 0 for my last 550 at-bats, but I have hit a couple of balls
hard this year." said Pete. "I'd better get the record back soon, because
Eric Davis Jr. is hitting the ball well in Indy and Petie III is having a
good year down there, too."
Michael D. McCullough
Larry Gene Gariepy Jr. wrote:
>So what is this crap about slamming Dartmouth and the
>other Ivy League schools?
(snip)
>But to take a remark like this and turn in into an insult
>against me, my school, and my CONFERENCE, well perhaps
>that says more about why the Ivies didn't take you than
>slacking off your senior year. Everyone knows your senior year
>grades don't matter anyway.
I really didn't want to get into this, but since you left yourself
this wide open, I can't help but point out that earlier in your
post, you say: "I was not saying that I personally want to strip
Maris of his record because it was a fluke. That is rediculous."
Don't they teach you how to spell "ridiculous" at Dartmouth? ;-)
Being a butt-insky,
Mike <--- Indiana B.S., Loyola (Chicago) J.D.
Gregory Bunimovich
James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
: In article <6cnvjm$iv9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
: Gregory Bunimovich <gbun...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
: >James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
: >Here we go again. As much as I'd like to resist, I just can't.
: Well, I don't really want to get embroiled in a long
: argument here because there's much work to be done on
: this HOF debate. But I'm prepared to back up my assertions
: here.
: >Rickey currently has 1231 stolen bases (and of course he's not done yet),
: >while Cobb finished with 891 (Thanks Sean Lahman). That's a difference of
: >340, or over 38% of Cobb's total. That's a huge difference. Surely you don't
: >really believe that the factors you bring below would make that huge a
: >difference.
: Well, yes, I do believe that, which is why I brought it up.
Right. I forgot who I was dealing with. But I think very few people would
agree. Of course, that doesn't make you wrong.
[arguments snipped]
: Again, none of these things did Rickey Henderson
: have to deal with. If you don't believe Cobb could
: have made up the 340 SBs, then we disagree. But if
: you think Henderson could have stolen 1231 and rising
: back then, you're crazy! What Cobb achieved under
: those conditions was amazing.
Apparently then I am crazy.
I'm not saying that what Cobb achieved wasn't impressive. Surely it was. But
what about Billy Hamilton stealing 912 bases? Were the conditions better? Were
the seasons longer? Did he have better pads?
Basically the whole argument is silly, because there is no way to quatify
the things you mention. I consider Rickey the best basestealer of all time.
You consider Cobb the best everything of all time. I don't mind arguing
when there's evidence that can be quantified. There really isn't here, so
I don't think we'll get anywhere.
Greg
Keith Merida
.294
.500
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> wrote in article
<6cnjbf$q...@miso.wwa.com>...
> In article <6cnc3a$q...@pluto.njcc.com>,
> David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >Sure, but you understand what he means. Yes, Maris had another big
> >season, but not another big HR season. Ruth is the HR guy; Maris is a
guy
> >who fluked into a record.
> >
> >Now Cobb deserves the hit record over Rose. (ducking.)
>
> If I take that statement to have any degree of sincerity,
> then for the same reason he deserves the SB record as well.
> There's no way Rickey Henderson would have caught his career
> totals if:
Henderson didn't just break Cobb's record, he demolished it. It's 1,231
(and counting) to 892. And Henderson didn't even break Cobb's record. He
broke Lou Brock's record.
> 1) they played 162 game schedules
Cobb played 574 more games than Henderson has. At Cobb's established rate
of .29 steals per game, he would have had to play 1,153 more games to be at
1231 now, and Henderson isn't even finished yet.
> 2) they played many fewer double headers
Wouldn't it be easier to steal in the second game of a DH as most teams
would have their backup catcher playing?
> 3) they had form-fitting pads that actually worked.
Agreed the quipment that basestealers use today is far superior. But so
are the gloves used by the fielders who tag out the would-be basestealers.
> 4) there was no WWI
Henderson has missed time due to strikes in 1981, 1985, 1994 and 1995.
> 5) conditions as a whole were better
> 6) Cobb didn't have to spend prolonged periods of
> time holding out for money against Navin.
Cobb didn't "have to" hold out. He chose to.
> As awesome as he was, if factors were simply such that
> he got into more games over his long career, he would have
> realistically put up career totals for hits, SBs, runs
> scored, doubles, triples, and rbis beyond approach for anyone
> succeding him.
Tris Speaker is ahead of Cobb in doubles, Sam Crawford is ahead of him in
triples, Ruth is ahead of hin in RBI. These players were Cobb's
contemporaries. If you're going to give Cobb the benefit of revising
history, you have to give it to them, too.
Cobb still owns the runs record and unless Henderson can score over 100
runs a year for three more years Cobb will still own it.
As for hits, according to other posters here Rose hung on for as much as 7
years to break Cobb's record. What makes you think he wouldn't have hung
on for another two or three after that if he had to? After all, he was
writing his own name in the lineup. Finally, if we give Cobb the extra
1,153 game required to break the SB record, wouldn't he then be the
all-tine outs leader and as such (according to other posters here) not even
be worthy of the HOF?
James Weisberg
In article <6cq1lm$ei1$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
Gregory Bunimovich <gbun...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>: Well, yes, I do believe that, which is why I brought it up.
>
>Right. I forgot who I was dealing with. But I think very few people would
>agree. Of course, that doesn't make you wrong.
At least the people who disagree with me should fully
understand the dynamic of the time.
>[arguments snipped]
>
>: Again, none of these things did Rickey Henderson
>: have to deal with. If you don't believe Cobb could
>: have made up the 340 SBs, then we disagree. But if
>: you think Henderson could have stolen 1231 and rising
>: back then, you're crazy! What Cobb achieved under
>: those conditions was amazing.
>
>Apparently then I am crazy.
You are if you think Rickey would have stolen 1231
bases back then.
>I'm not saying that what Cobb achieved wasn't impressive. Surely it was. But
>what about Billy Hamilton stealing 912 bases? Were the conditions better? Were
>the seasons longer? Did he have better pads?
Ah, Billy Hamilton racked up his top three base stealing
totals when a runner was credited with an SB if he tagged
up on a fly ball, went from 1st to 3rd on a single, or
moved up on a ground ball to the right side. The rules
changed in 1892. Cobb would have blown everyone away if
he was credited for SBs with those plays. That's what
he excelled at, even more then the straight steal!
>Basically the whole argument is silly, because there is no way to quatify
>the things you mention. I consider Rickey the best basestealer of all time.
It's an easy thing to do to credit Rickey as the best
basestealer of all time. After all, he's got the most, and
he has a high degree of success. But does that mean he was
the greatest/best? No, it doesn't. One must look at the
conditions under which he played and compare those to others.
Head first slides were very rare in the 1900s. If you slid
into the bag head first, your face would be smashed into
the dirt! Rickey Henderson played in the best of all
possible conditions when he was a MLer. Cobb played in
about the worst. He revolutioned base stealing and
base running. Unfortunately, there's not even anyone
around anymore that was even close to him to compare.
The game on the basepaths was absolutely different back
then. You can't even begin to quantify it by simple
SBs and caught stealings.
>You consider Cobb the best everything of all time.
No, I don't. But I think he was the smartest, best
hitter and base runner of all time.
>I don't mind arguing
>when there's evidence that can be quantified. There really isn't here, so
>I don't think we'll get anywhere.
Well, maybe. I think you have to open your mind to the
possibility that there is much more than the quantification
of numbers needed to judge these two ballplayers from
different eras. I challenge you to find one single person
who saw both Ty Cobb and Rickey Henderson and/or Lou Brock
and/or Jackie Robinson run the bases that declares the
latter as the better.
Mike Jones
> James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> wrote in article
> <6cnjbf$q...@miso.wwa.com>...
> > In article <6cnc3a$q...@pluto.njcc.com>,
> > David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > >Sure, but you understand what he means. Yes, Maris had another big
> > >season, but not another big HR season. Ruth is the HR guy; Maris is a
> guy
> > >who fluked into a record.
> > >Now Cobb deserves the hit record over Rose. (ducking.)
> > If I take that statement to have any degree of sincerity,
> > then for the same reason he deserves the SB record as well.
> > There's no way Rickey Henderson would have caught his career
> > totals if:
> Henderson didn't just break Cobb's record, he demolished it. It's 1,231
> (and counting) to 892. And Henderson didn't even break Cobb's record. He
> broke Lou Brock's record.
> > 1) they played 162 game schedules
> Cobb played 574 more games than Henderson has. At Cobb's established rate
> of .29 steals per game, he would have had to play 1,153 more games to be at
> 1231 now, and Henderson isn't even finished yet.
> > 2) they played many fewer double headers
> Wouldn't it be easier to steal in the second game of a DH as most teams
> would have their backup catcher playing?
Plus, is this really any worse than day games after night games?
Marginally,
I suppose, but it's not as big a difference as it seems. Plus, you have
to
weigh the effect of jet lag, which counts in Rickey's favor.
...
James, you missed the biggest (IMO) factor in favor of Cobb: he never
got
to run on artificial turf.
David Peng
James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
: I challenge you to find one single person
: who saw both Ty Cobb and Rickey Henderson and/or Lou Brock
: and/or Jackie Robinson run the bases that declares the
: latter as the better.
Well, given the time span between Cobb and Henderson, I can pretty safely
say that there aren't too many people who can do what you're asking, and
even if you found one, I wouldn't trust them to be objective or
clear-minded enough to make such a declaration.
Heck, I don't even know anyone that old anymore!
d.
David Marc Nieporent
In <6cq4ol$c...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:
>Gregory Bunimovich <gbun...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
[big snip]
>>I don't mind arguing
>>when there's evidence that can be quantified. There really isn't here, so
>>I don't think we'll get anywhere.
> Well, maybe. I think you have to open your mind to the
>possibility that there is much more than the quantification
>of numbers needed to judge these two ballplayers from
>different eras. I challenge you to find one single person
>who saw both Ty Cobb and Rickey Henderson and/or Lou Brock
>and/or Jackie Robinson run the bases that declares the
>latter as the better.
As usual, I think James is crazy, but leaving aside the specifics of the
debate*, it was this last paragraph I wanted to touch on.
That's an absolutely ridiculous argument, James. Nobody saw both Ty Cobb
and Rickey Henderson who isn't senile by now. And even if they weren't
senile, or even if we're talking about Ty Cobb and Jackie Robinson, they
played two decades apart. Nobody is qualified to compare people that they
saw two decades apart. It just isn't possible to do that. The human
brain doesn't work that way.
*Okay, I can't entirely ignore the specifics. You want to talk about
shortened seasons, which isn't relevant, since Rickey outstole Cobb in far
_less_ time. He didn't outsteal Cobb; he *far* outstole Cobb. Just like
Cobb couldn't have hit home runs like Ruth, he couldn't steal like
Henderson. This isn't a Rose-Cobb thing, where Rose broke the record by
playing much worse for a lot longer. Henderson played much better for a
lot less time.
You want to talk about equipment, while ignoring the fact that better
equipment means that it was easier for catchers and fielders to throw him
out.
You want to talk about conditions, while ignoring the fact that Rickey has
to play day games after night games and such. People always talk about
doubleheaders in the old days, but that ignores the _reason_ for the
doubleheaders -- to give plenty of off days for travel. Rickey doesn't
get off days in midseason.
You want to talk about conditions, while ignoring the fact that Rickey
can't go around spiking people just to intimidate them into letting him
steal.
(And, of course, you ignore the general overall lower level of play. How
many would Rickey steal if half the league was of AAA quality?)
Keith Merida
> In article <6cnvjm$iv9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> Gregory Bunimovich <gbun...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
> >Here we go again. As much as I'd like to resist, I just can't.
>
> Well, I don't really want to get embroiled in a long
> argument here because there's much work to be done on
> this HOF debate. But I'm prepared to back up my assertions
> here.
>
> >Rickey currently has 1231 stolen bases (and of course he's not done
yet),
> >while Cobb finished with 891 (Thanks Sean Lahman). That's a difference
of
> >340, or over 38% of Cobb's total. That's a huge difference. Surely you
don't
> >really believe that the factors you bring below would make that huge a
> >difference.
>
> Well, yes, I do believe that, which is why I brought it up.
>
> >: 1) they played 162 game schedules
> >
> >A difference of 5%. Something, but not all that much considering the 38%
> >difference is number of stolen bases.
>
> Worth about 50 SBs right there.
But Cobb has already played nearly 600 more games than Henderson. If Rickey
had played as many games as Cobb at his established rate of .50 steals per
game he'd have over 1500.
> >: 2) they played many fewer double headers
> >
> >Any evidence that this decreased the number of stolen bases? I can see
the
> >logic, though, if you're tired after playing for a long time you're less
> >likely to steal a base. A minor effect.
>
> Well, they played a lot of double headers though --
> sometimes back to back to back. It's not just that Cobb
> would get tired to steal that day, but that he might
> not even play or he might be darn tired for games
> after that.
Since they played more double headers yet less games doesn't that mean they
also had more days off to rest and refresh themselves? What would you
rather do, play 2 today and get tomorrow off, or play a night game today
whcich lasts until nearly midnight and play tomorrow afternoon?
> >: 3) they had form-fitting pads that actually worked.
> >
> >No idea how to evaluate this. Again, though, I'd guess minor effect at
most.
>
> This was the most major effect! Cobb ran without pads, as
> they bunched up and slowed him down. He revolutionized base
> stealing as we know it. Other players got by with the fairly
> crude pads they had and didn't suffer much. Cobb slid very
> hard to one side of the bag or the other, just hooking the
> bag with his foot. The abrasions which he suffered as a
> result were horrendous. They cost him many SBs and games
> played. After some games, his uniform literally had to be
> pealed off him as blood and puss glued the uniform to his
> raw skin. Rickey Henderson never dealt with anything like
> this. Cobb even wound up in the hospital once when his leg
> became seriously infected.
From 1905-1919 the average AL team stole 180 bases/year ( I quit counting
at 1919 because from 1920 on Cobb never stole more than 25 bases in a year
- looks like the lively ball in 1920 cost Cobb more steals than anything
else). From 1979 - 1997 the average AL team(Henderson has played almost
exclusively in the AL) stole 103 bases/year. If it was so much harder to
steal bases under such primitive conditions, why did they steal MORE bases?
And Cobb didn't have to deal with things like night games, coast-to-coast
travel, astroturf, arbitration, free agency, relief pitchers, slide steps,
media scrutiny, televised games, Steinbrenner, Billy Martin....
Honored to participate in a thread with.....
Keith Merida
Mike Jones <jon...@rpi.edu> wrote in article
<34F0CB28...@rpi.edu>...
> > > In article <6cnc3a$q...@pluto.njcc.com>,
> > > David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > > >Sure, but you understand what he means. Yes, Maris had another big
> > > >season, but not another big HR season. Ruth is the HR guy; Maris is
a
> > guy
> > > >who fluked into a record.
> > > >Now Cobb deserves the hit record over Rose. (ducking.)
> > > If I take that statement to have any degree of sincerity,
> > > then for the same reason he deserves the SB record as well.
> > > There's no way Rickey Henderson would have caught his career
> > > totals if:
> > Henderson didn't just break Cobb's record, he demolished it. It's
1,231
> > (and counting) to 892. And Henderson didn't even break Cobb's record.
He
> > broke Lou Brock's record.
rate
> > of .29 steals per game, he would have had to play 1,153 more games to
be at
> > 1231 now, and Henderson isn't even finished yet.
> > would have their backup catcher playing?
>
> Plus, is this really any worse than day games after night games?
> Marginally,
> I suppose, but it's not as big a difference as it seems. Plus, you have
> to
> weigh the effect of jet lag, which counts in Rickey's favor.
>
> ...
>
> James, you missed the biggest (IMO) factor in favor of Cobb: he never
> got
> to run on artificial turf.
Cobb also never had to play the outfield on astroturf. You think sliding
in grass/dirt is damaging to the knees, just try it on astroturf sometime.
Eramon1
Larry Gariepy wrote: (quoted in its entirety)
----------------------------
Eramon1 wrote:
>
> Larry Gariepy of Dartmouth irritated me by saying:
>
> >I would love nothing more than to see him do it. I think baseball fans
> >in general would like to see this record come down. Maris has always
> >been a sort of annoyance (read any history of his chase of Babe Ruth in
> >1961). Babe Ruth obviously deserved to own the single season record,
> >but Maris? The guy didn't even hit 300 HRs over his entire career, so
> >more than 1/5th of them came in a single season! If McGwire could take
> >Maris down, then the record would once again be in the hands of someone
> >who "deserves" it.
> >
> >
>
> Grrrrrrrrrrrr....
>
> That's the kind of post that makes me glad I slacked off in my senior year in
> high school so the Ivy League colleges wouldn't take me!
>
> the stolen base record back.
>
> Walter Johnson pitched in flannel uniforms. Maybe he "deserves" the career
> strikeout record back.
>
> The truth is Maris was a player who had two big years and one of them
included
> the greatest number of home runs hit in A SINGLE SEASON!!, Larry, which is
why
> it's the record for MOST HOME RUNS in A SINGLE SEASON!!!
>
> Which is also why Maris does deserve the record...because he's the guy who
> actually did it.
>
> Portland
Wow, no need to get personal, Portland!! Rather than re-flame, let me explain
what I meant. Of course Maris "deserves" the record in the sense that he did
it. I was not saying that I personally want to strip Maris of his record
because it was a fluke. That is rediculous. Note my parenthetical remark
referring to reading "any history of his chase of Babe Ruth". Yankee fans in
1961 didn't want Roger Maris to break their beloved Ruth's record. While
there is no true "asterisk" next to Maris' name in the record books, most
Yankee fans were content to believe that Maris only broke Ruth's record
because of the season being extended to 162 games. The fact that Maris hit
#61 on the last day of the season would even bear this out. None of us know
what this was like. We have not lived to see a superstar of Babe Ruth's
caliber set an "unbreakable" record, live with it for 30 years, and then have
someone like Roger Maris come out of nowhere and break it. My intent here was
just to give my impression of one reason that I felt might want to see the
record fall. Note the phrase "I think baseball fans in general would like to
see this record come down."
I'm sorry that I did not literally say "Hey, I am not speaking for myself, but
rather giving my impression of one reason why baseball fans might like to see
the record be broken." I felt that my introduction, and the fact that
"deserves" is in quotes would serve to indicate my point. Apparently, when
you slacked off your senior year, you missed an important lesson in
interpretting other people's writing.
So what is this crap about slamming Dartmouth and the other Ivy League
schools? Why don't you cut out the knee-jerk flame garbage. If my facts are
wrong, then correct me. If you don't agree with my opinion, let me know. But
to take a remark like this and turn in into an insult against me, my school,
and my CONFERENCE, well perhaps that says more about why the Ivies didn't take
you than slacking off your senior year. Everyone knows your senior year
grades don't matter anyway.
Larry Gariepy
ps. I noticed you didn't say what college you _were_ from.
-----------------------------------------------
Larry,
I'm glad you didn't "re-flame". It might have gotten hot.
OK, you're wrong. Most Yankee fans wanted Maris to break the record. They
wanted Mantle to break it, too. As for their "beloved" Ruth, most Yankee fans
had only heard about him or remembered him vaguely since his career had ended
such a long time before. Having two modern-day sluggers, the M&M boys, was a
lot more exciting than hearing stories about the Babe. There
*were* some people who didn't like it. Ford Frick, the commissioner who was the
ghost writer for Babe Ruth's autobiography, ruled that two separate records
were to be shown, one for 154 games and one for 162. Babe's widow was also very
vocal about it. Older sportswriters who realized how old they were getting
(that's a personal opinion) didn't like the new record either. But most fans
loved it and were rooting for Maris. It's common now for hitters to take
curtain calls after a home run if it puts their team in the lead. Back then
nobody did it. It was considered showing up the other team. I can't stress
enough how rigid this code was. Nobody violated it. When Maris hit his 61st the
fans went wild. He was forced by teammates to acknowledge the fans. It was the
Yankee fans who *most* loved what he had done.
Remember, Maris had been MVP before. He *hadn't* come out of nowhere.
Brady Anderson came out of nowhere. Would you have found it exciting or somehow
wrong if he had broken the record in '96? If Tino Martinez were to break the
record this year would you find that annoying?
I agree there is some sort of symmetry to have career achievers hold the single
season records in their specialties. There's something spectacular, however,
about comets....players who shine, flame and burnout.
I also agree that fans would like to see the record come down....just as they
wanted to see Ruth's record fall, or rather to see Maris (or Mantle) establish
a new record.
I was a little boy in 1961, living in New York when Roger Maris set his record.
I am one of the people you say felt a certain way. Now you know I didn't. I can
also tell you that nobody I know who was there felt Maris didn't "deserve" his
record. Sometimes histories are only the personal opinion of the writer. The
more I read about what supposedly happened during my lifetime the more I think
*all* histories are flawed.
And you can cool down now. I thought making fun of myself in the first sentence
would give you a clue that I wasn't really slamming your life.
To sum up....lifetime records are for lifetime achievement, single season
records are for the length of ONE season, sometimes those records are held by
the same people, sometimes not and THAT is one of the particularly fascinating
elements of sports.
Let me know what you think.
-Eric Ramon
Portland
previously at Antioch
Brian Stromblad
In <6cqcho$1...@pluto.njcc.com> niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc
Nieporent) writes:
>
{major deletions}
>*Okay, I can't entirely ignore the specifics. You want to talk about
>shortened seasons, which isn't relevant, since Rickey outstole Cobb in
far
>_less_ time. He didn't outsteal Cobb; he *far* outstole Cobb. Just
like
>Cobb couldn't have hit home runs like Ruth, he couldn't steal like
>Henderson. This isn't a Rose-Cobb thing, where Rose broke the record
by
>playing much worse for a lot longer. Henderson played much better for
a
>lot less time.
>
>You want to talk about equipment, while ignoring the fact that better
>equipment means that it was easier for catchers and fielders to throw
him
>out.
>
>You want to talk about conditions, while ignoring the fact that Rickey
has
>to play day games after night games and such. People always talk
about
>doubleheaders in the old days, but that ignores the _reason_ for the
>doubleheaders -- to give plenty of off days for travel. Rickey
doesn't
>get off days in midseason.
>
Really? I coulda swore he get about 20 games off during the season
and only about 2 weeks of spring training. ;)
James Weisberg
In article <6cqcho$1...@pluto.njcc.com>,
>debate*, it was this last paragraph I wanted to touch on.
Okay. I'm going to do something humane and nip this in
the bud right now. I have far too many other things to do
in considering 3rd baseman and such to get started on this.
I do have replies to everyone's points here. My argument
was two-fold: 1) Cobb could have played many more games
under better conditions and 2) Cobb could have stole many
more bases (i.e. a faster rate) under better conditions.
I am *NOT* suggesting that he would have stolen as
frequently or with as great a success as Rickey Henderson.
That wasn't his game plan, and he defends his choices
to make seemingly crazed attempts. He wasn't stupid. They
had a point. Perhaps in the artifical turf era, Cobb
would have been the best leadoff man in the history
of the game and stolen a zillion bases with great
success.
I am suggesting however, that if conditions were
such that he could have simply played in more games
per season for any number of reasons I've outlined,
both his success rate and longevity would have made
up those SBs. On the flipside, there's no way
Rickey Henderson would have racked up that many
SBs in the deadball era. I can't defend that
statement quantitatively. But if you understand
that Ty Cobb was the toughest son of a bitch ever
to put on a uniform, you'd understand that there's
no way Henderson would have been that prolific.
--
James Weisberg
In article <01bd3fe8$eab2f080$1740fed0@merida>,
Keith Merida <mer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>From 1905-1919 the average AL team stole 180 bases/year ( I quit counting
>at 1919 because from 1920 on Cobb never stole more than 25 bases in a year
>- looks like the lively ball in 1920 cost Cobb more steals than anything
>else). From 1979 - 1997 the average AL team(Henderson has played almost
>exclusively in the AL) stole 103 bases/year. If it was so much harder to
>steal bases under such primitive conditions, why did they steal MORE bases?
I will go ahead and address this one. It's good of you
to notice, Keith, that after 1920 Cobb never stole more
than 25 bases. However, it wasn't the new ball which
cost him steals. It was the combination of two things:
1) his age and accumulated wear and tear. He was 34 yrs
old, afterall and had already had significant injuries
on his legs from stealing bases. 2) early in the season
in 1920, Cobb collided full tilt with Ira Flagstead and
tore all the ligaments from his right knee. He was out
4-5 weeks on crutches. After a while, the doctor suggested
he put some real pressure on the knee and if it collapsed,
he would cut loose the adhesions and let it reheal. So
that's what Cobb did. And he of course ruptured his knee
again: "When I hit the dirt, a million stars exploded.
The pain was agonizing and I didn't have a doubt that
I'd ruined myself for good and all." Although, afterwards
Cobb claims he was up and "running like an antelope."
However, you can imagine the guy lost a step or two
with all the abuse he inflicted on himself.
Anyway, it wasn't the new ball. As to why they stole
more bases then. The answer is simple: They HAD TO!
That's how they scored runs! The SB was a critcial
component of any game. Once the home run firmly
entrenched itself in baseball tactics, the stolen
base diminished significantly until Jackie Robinson
and others revitalized it.
--
David Grabiner
chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James Weisberg) writes:
> Anyway, it wasn't the new ball. As to why they stole
> more bases then. The answer is simple: They HAD TO!
> That's how they scored runs! The SB was a critcial
> component of any game. Once the home run firmly
> entrenched itself in baseball tactics, the stolen
> base diminished significantly until Jackie Robinson
> and others revitalized it.
And, as a result, dead-ball players stole bases in lower-chance
situations, with the expected results. The year that Cobb stole 96
bases, he was caught 38 times. Henderson never had a percentage that
low in any of his big base-stealing years; he was caught 42 times the
year he stole 130, and much less in other years.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Gregory Bunimovich
James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
: On the flipside, there's no way
: Rickey Henderson would have racked up that many
: SBs in the deadball era. I can't defend that
: statement quantitatively. But if you understand
: that Ty Cobb was the toughest son of a bitch ever
: to put on a uniform, you'd understand that there's
: no way Henderson would have been that prolific.
Really, James, that's not a very solid argument, as I'm sure you are aware.
This is akin to bringing in the "intangibles" argument. You've admitted to
being unable to prove it quantitatively. Now you bring in some real fluff.
Toughness. I'm sure that impresses a lot of the people here. Need I point
out that ability is much more important that toughness. How do you know
Cobb was the toughest ever? Maybe I'm a tougher player. Does that make me the
best ever? Even though I have no ability?
Also, you talked about Cobb losing a lot of playing time, and also hurting
himself. Here you mention that he was tough. True. Don't you think there is
some connection? As aggressive as he was, Cobb would have hurt himself under
any circumstances.
Greg
Thomas R Scudder
James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) asieoniezi:
: On the flipside, there's no way
: Rickey Henderson would have racked up that many
: SBs in the deadball era.
You are, of course, quite correct. Mostly because he wouldn't be allowed
to play.
--
Tom Scudder aka tom...@umich.edu <*> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tomscud
I'm called little Ishmael / Sweet little Ishmael
Though I could never say why...
-from _H. M. S. Pequod_, words by H. Melville, music by A. Sullivan
James Weisberg
In article <6csh3a$78k$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>: Rickey Henderson would have racked up that many
>: statement quantitatively. But if you understand
>: that Ty Cobb was the toughest son of a bitch ever
>: to put on a uniform, you'd understand that there's
>: no way Henderson would have been that prolific.
>
>Really, James, that's not a very solid argument, as I'm sure you are aware.
>This is akin to bringing in the "intangibles" argument. You've admitted to
>being unable to prove it quantitatively. Now you bring in some real fluff.
>Toughness. I'm sure that impresses a lot of the people here. Need I point
>out that ability is much more important that toughness. How do you know
>Cobb was the toughest ever? Maybe I'm a tougher player. Does that make me the
>best ever? Even though I have no ability?
I can only quantify so much of my argument. Ty Cobb played
about 84.5% of his team's games over the course of his long
career. Speaker and Crawford, to name two of the guys ahead
of him in doubles and triples, played roughly 89-90% of their
team's games. If Cobb had fewer distractions and played just
that extra 4.5%, he would have tacked on another ~250 hits,
40-45 doubles, 15-20 triples, 50-60 SBs. That basically gives
the triples crown to him, gets him very close on the doubles
crown, and probably puts the base hit record out of Rose's
reach. If he played during the 162 game schedule, double those
numbers above.
But what if conditions simply were all-round better?
As tough as he was, he did miss a significant amount of
time to injury -- some of which could have been avoided
altogether or treated better under better conditions.
One has to consider his toughness as more than just
some nebulous intangible, however. You can't argue that
this man endured pain and suffering far beyond what any
ballplayer would handle today; and indeed beyond what
pretty much any ballplayer handled then either. Everyone
who ever knew Cobb for any length of time marveled how
durable the man was under extreme conditions. This
kept him on the field, when others would be out. It
kept him going for 24yr when others bowed out earlier.
>Also, you talked about Cobb losing a lot of playing time, and also hurting
>himself. Here you mention that he was tough. True. Don't you think there is
>some connection? As aggressive as he was, Cobb would have hurt himself under
>any circumstances.
Oddly enough, Cobb attributes his gutsy play for both
his durability and longevity. I agree he would have hurt
himself under any circumstances. However, it's the limit
and sum total of those injuries which may have been
decreased significantly. One only has to read some of
the daily routine Cobb went through late in the season
after dozens of slides had rubbed his legs raw to understand
that this player would have been even more effective if
the proper conditions existed whereby this type of
thing didn't happen. Rickey Henderson wasn't pealing the
uniform off his legs every night in stealing 100 bases.
Rickey Henderson played under much more gentile conditions.
Like I said, his headfirst slide would have been speedily
reversed back then.
One can't just say that Henderson stole the most with
a great success rate and therefore he's automatically
the best. There's more to the story than that. Cobb rarely
spiked people running into bases. That is a fallacy. Who
knows what he would have done under better circumstances,
circumstances where the injury to himself was much less
severe? I'm fairly confident that Henderson wouldn't have
done better under *worse* circumstances. Some correction
needs to be made in that evaluation of quantifiable
numbers alone. And I argue that correction would have
put Cobb over the top in career steals. Henderson would
have still had a better success rate. But stealing bases
alone is but a small part of general baserunning savvy.
James Weisberg
In article <LskI.2550$N4.16...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
Thomas R Scudder <tom...@umich.edu> wrote:
>James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) asieoniezi:
>: On the flipside, there's no way
>: Rickey Henderson would have racked up that many
>: SBs in the deadball era.
>
>to play.
hahaha! Very funny. You know, everytime any argument
like this comes up, *SOMEONE* is bound to make the same
stupid observation. Whether or not you think my argument
is crazed, the idea that Player A performs cumulatively
better across eras than Player B has always been crucial
to any of my arguments about skill and greatness. It
is tiresome to read the same inane comebacks.
Thomas R Scudder
James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) asieoniezi:
: It is tiresome to read the same inane comebacks.
Truer words were never spoke.
Crafruso
CH>In article <LskI.2550$N4.16...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
CH>Thomas R Scudder <tom...@umich.edu> wrote:
CH>>James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) asieoniezi:
CH>>: On the flipside, there's no way
CH>>: Rickey Henderson would have racked up that many
CH>>: SBs in the deadball era.
CH>>
CH>>You are, of course, quite correct. Mostly because he wouldn't be allowed
CH>>to play.
CH> hahaha! Very funny. You know, everytime any argument
CH>like this comes up, *SOMEONE* is bound to make the same
CH>stupid observation. Whether or not you think my argument
CH>is crazed, the idea that Player A performs cumulatively
CH>better across eras than Player B has always been crucial
CH>to any of my arguments about skill and greatness. It
CH>is tiresome to read the same inane comebacks.
CH>--
CH>World's Greatest Living Poster.
James, I felt his statement was perfectly valid. How can we possibly
decide whether or not your argument is crazed? You made no argument -
just a flat-out assertion. Why do you feel that Henderson could not
have gotten all those stolen bases in the dead ball era - apparently it
isn't because he wouldn't be allowed to play.
Russ Craft
--
This message comes from NaSCOM, the official internet server of NaSPA, THE
Network and System Professionals Assocation, with over 40,000 members in 72
countries. Contact http://www.naspa.net for free trial membership or
X116 or fax (414) 768-8001 or (414) 768-8000 x116 voice.
James Weisberg
In article <888266...@NaSPA.Net>, Crafruso <craf...@NaSPA.Net> wrote:
>James, I felt his statement was perfectly valid.
Valid only in that it was a true statement, not in that
it contributed anything to the argument.
>How can we possibly
>decide whether or not your argument is crazed? You made no argument -
>just a flat-out assertion.
No I didn't.
>Why do you feel that Henderson could not
>have gotten all those stolen bases in the dead ball era - apparently it
>isn't because he wouldn't be allowed to play.
Well, for one, they didn't play as many games. For two,
this nightgame-daygame crap is just that -- CRAP! There
aren't many nightgame-daygames scheduled. There were more
double headers back then, teams often ended the season with
back-to-back-to-back doubleheaders, you had to play in heavy
flannel uniforms in the dead of summer on highly unkept surfaces
with barely adequate padding. Flying in a plane from New York
to Oakland every now and then and staying in a hotel suite
is hardly the same as riding in a cramped train and sharing
a crappy room and shower with a bunch of other guys. The
health and wellbeing facilities of a ballplayer of that time
were extremely lacking.
Other than that, the on-field play was just a 1000 times
tougher. Players were expected to play through various ailments.
If Ty Cobb was as tough as they came, managing to get more
plate and game appearances than just about anyone from that era,
how long do you think Rickey Henderson would have held up
under those conditions? It is highly unlikely that he would
have been anywhere near as prolific at stealing bases. Other
than that, he would have to switch to an exclusively feet
first slide. That would tear up his legs even more. 1200+
SBs! I laugh in your general direction! :-))
--
James Weisberg
In article <ybgi7m6m...@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu>,
David Grabiner <grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
>chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James Weisberg) writes:
>> Anyway, it wasn't the new ball. As to why they stole
>> more bases then. The answer is simple: They HAD TO!
>> That's how they scored runs! The SB was a critcial
>> component of any game. Once the home run firmly
>> entrenched itself in baseball tactics, the stolen
>> base diminished significantly until Jackie Robinson
>> and others revitalized it.
>
>And, as a result, dead-ball players stole bases in lower-chance
>situations, with the expected results. The year that Cobb stole 96
>bases, he was caught 38 times. Henderson never had a percentage that
>low in any of his big base-stealing years; he was caught 42 times the
>year he stole 130, and much less in other years.
No one really had a stellar SB record back then compared to
players today. So faulting a deadball era player for not putting
up an 80% success ratio is unneccesary. One day, I'll collect
all the box scores from all the games Cobb ever played and
demonstrate that his low percentage SB gambles in uncritical
situations were significant. These should really not detract
from his offensive prowess; indeed, just the opposite! He
used those situations to confound the defense into thinking
he could go at any instant. It worked. Cobb later regretted
not topping 100 steals. He was saving his legs in case the
Tigers made the postseason. Again, one really wonders what
numbers he could have put up in later times.
--
Jon Avins
James Weisberg wrote:
>
> In article <6cq1lm$ei1$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> Gregory Bunimovich <gbun...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> At least the people who disagree with me should fully
> understand the dynamic of the time.
You should try it yourself, see below.
> >: Again, none of these things did Rickey Henderson
> >: have to deal with.
That is one funny line, see below.
If you don't believe Cobb could
> >: have made up the 340 SBs, then we disagree. But if
> >: you think Henderson could have stolen 1231 and rising
> >: back then, you're crazy!
Your whole starting point is ludicrous actually, in as much as you base
it on the conditions of the time: Henderson wouldn't have been allowed
on the team. So really you're right, Henderson would NOT have stolen
even one base in MLB if he had lived in the Jim Crow era.
> I challenge you to find one single person
> who saw both Ty Cobb and Rickey Henderson and/or Lou Brock
> and/or Jackie Robinson run the bases that declares the
> latter as the better.
Two questions, James:
1: Do *you* happen to know anyone who saw both Cobb and Henderson?
2: Do you believe everything every nostalgic 90 year old person on a
trip down "memory lane" tells you? That nostalgia is the sole source of
support for your contention.
Jon Avins
Ron Johnson
>at 1919 because from 1920 on Cobb never stole more than 25 bases in a year
>- looks like the lively ball in 1920 cost Cobb more steals than anything
>else). From 1979 - 1997 the average AL team(Henderson has played almost
>exclusively in the AL) stole 103 bases/year. If it was so much harder to
>steal bases under such primitive conditions, why did they steal MORE bases?
Well that's easy. *Every* time there was a man on first and less than
two outs they put on some kind of play. And with two outs it was
straight steal or hit and run.
There's a very high correlation between stolen base attempts and
(singles + walks)
--
RNJ
James Weisberg
In article <34F177...@home.now>, Jon Avins <jav...@home.now> wrote:
>James Weisberg wrote:
>If you don't believe Cobb could
>> >: have made up the 340 SBs, then we disagree. But if
>> >: you think Henderson could have stolen 1231 and rising
>> >: back then, you're crazy!
>
>Your whole starting point is ludicrous actually, in as much as you base
>it on the conditions of the time: Henderson wouldn't have been allowed
>on the team. So really you're right, Henderson would NOT have stolen
>even one base in MLB if he had lived in the Jim Crow era.
Oh Geez, can't you people *imagine* Rickey Henderson
playing ball in the deadball era? Assume for a second
that blacks and whites get along hunky-dory and go from
there. The conditions of the time on the ballplayer were
very tough indeed. There's no way Henderson would have
been stealing 1200+ bases.
>> I challenge you to find one single person
>> who saw both Ty Cobb and Rickey Henderson and/or Lou Brock
>> and/or Jackie Robinson run the bases that declares the
>> latter as the better.
>
>Two questions, James:
>1: Do *you* happen to know anyone who saw both Cobb and Henderson?
Gene Autry. ;-)
There were plenty of people who saw both Robinson and
Cobb. Jackie Robinson brought SBs back into the game. But
Ty Cobb was the ace baserunner of all time.
>2: Do you believe everything every nostalgic 90 year old person on a
>trip down "memory lane" tells you? That nostalgia is the sole source of
>support for your contention.
No. I don't even talk to nostalgic 90yr old people. And
it's not even a source of support. My support comes from
knowing about the conditions back then. No one here seems
willing to admit that that game was a hell of a lot tougher
back then. I've brought up my points which you have casually
dismissed. I already said I didn't want to get embroiled
in this. If you have a point of mine you want to specifically
discuss, I'll discuss it. If you are just going to brush
off the whole thing, then I might as well move on to something
more productive.
David Marc Nieporent
In <6cur10$s...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:
>In article <34F177...@home.now>, Jon Avins <jav...@home.now> wrote:
>>James Weisberg wrote:
>>> >: If you don't believe Cobb could
>>> >: have made up the 340 SBs, then we disagree. But if
>>> >: you think Henderson could have stolen 1231 and rising
>>> >: back then, you're crazy!
> Oh Geez, can't you people *imagine* Rickey Henderson
>playing ball in the deadball era? Assume for a second
>that blacks and whites get along hunky-dory and go from
>there. The conditions of the time on the ballplayer were
>very tough indeed. There's no way Henderson would have
>been stealing 1200+ bases.
Of *course* there is. He's a much bettter base stealer than Cobb.
>>> I challenge you to find one single person
>>> who saw both Ty Cobb and Rickey Henderson and/or Lou Brock
>>> and/or Jackie Robinson run the bases that declares the
>>> latter as the better.
>>Two questions, James:
>>1: Do *you* happen to know anyone who saw both Cobb and Henderson?
>Gene Autry. ;-)
> There were plenty of people who saw both Robinson and
>Cobb. Jackie Robinson brought SBs back into the game. But
>Ty Cobb was the ace baserunner of all time.
But as I noted, nobody is qualified to compare the two. They played 2
decades apart. A bigger gap than that between their peaks.
>>2: Do you believe everything every nostalgic 90 year old person on a
>>trip down "memory lane" tells you? That nostalgia is the sole source of
>>support for your contention.
> No. I don't even talk to nostalgic 90yr old people. And
>it's not even a source of support.
Then why did you ask the question?
>My support comes from
>knowing about the conditions back then. No one here seems
>willing to admit that that game was a hell of a lot tougher
>back then. I've brought up my points which you have casually
>dismissed.
Mostly because they were silly. When you bring up longer seasons, as if
Henderson needed the benefit of longer seasons to outsteal Cobb, what's
the point of the discussion?
>I already said I didn't want to get embroiled
>in this. If you have a point of mine you want to specifically
>discuss, I'll discuss it. If you are just going to brush
>off the whole thing, then I might as well move on to something
>more productive.
What's to discuss? You idealize (well, in reverse) the conditions back
then, while ignoring the conditions now which make basestealing much
harder. You can't spike people nowadays just to steal bases. There is no
way in hell Cobb would have stolen 900 bases if he played in the 1990s.
The only point you have is that Cobb had worse equipment. But while that
may have made basestealing harder on the body, it made *successful*
basestealing easier. You ignored that.
Eramon1
David Nieporent wrote:
<snip, then responding to Henderson vs. Cobb...and the statement "There's no
way Henderson would have been stealing 1200+ bases">
>Of *course* there is. He's a much bettter base stealer than Cobb.
>
>
I believe Henderson is faster than Cobb. I also believe the arms of the
pitchers and catchers are better now than then. I think Henderson could have
stolen 1500 bases in the '00s and '10s. Of course everybody on any side of the
question is guessing. But this Jim Crow business that J. Weisberg wants to
ignore is, in fact, fundamental to the argument. If Rickey were somehow allowed
to play he'd have been the recipient of some of the dirty play we've heard
about from those days. I suspect he'd be battered and have his playing days cut
short. Outside of that, though, he'd perform at or slightly above what he's
already done.
It interests me that we pay so little attention to this particular record,
maybe because it's current or because he's broken the old one so thoroughly.
The only thing we've seen that's like it is Nolan Ryan's K mark.
-Eric Ramon
Portland
Larry Gariepy
OK, you are right. Perhaps I am a victim of the "rewriting of history"
a-la "1984". I wanted to make sure I did indeed read what I thought I
read, so I did at least double check a source that I had handy before
posting my previous reply about Yankee fans not wanting Maris to break
Ruth's record.
If you say you were there, though, then I would trust you over this
book. It's too bad that people can write things like that and affect
mindless readers like myself. However, I also thought I had heard
something like this from a few other sources, so I even thought I had
something to go on.
Anyway, that's neither here nor there. At least you understand
what I meant, and apparently I'm wrong, which sucks, but I guess I'll
deal with it. :)
Well, even though I've already gotten in trouble for making
generalizations, I'm going to try again. I think people tend to be
loyal to people they grew up with. Does that sound fair? In other
words, the people who might have been against Maris breaking Ruth's
record probably tended to be people that were around when Ruth was
playing. I know that if McGwire breaks the record this year, and
someone comes out of nowhere in 40 years to break _his_ record (after
they just increased the schedule to 170 games), then I'd probably feel
slighted myself. But that is just a product of _my_ personal loyalty,
and nothing more.
As a _general_ rule, I love to see records broken. So now that I
try to put myself in the shoes of a 1961 Yankees fan, I can imagine that
a lot of them, especially those who weren't around when Ruth played,
would have liked to see the record broken, because it would be their own
piece of history. It must be a great feeling to be able to say "Hey, I
saw the single greatest homerun season in history". _I_ would like to
be able to say that myself.
Well, thanks for setting me straight. I guess I have to learn not
to read everything I believe. No, I mean believe everything I read. :)
I also appreciate your civility. You probably didn't feel like
being as nice as you were after what I wrote. So I tip my virtual cap
to you.
Larry Gariepy
D_rtmouth College (name altered to preserve anonymity!)
gariepy@cs.d_rtmouth.edu :)
Larry Gariepy
Michael D. McCullough wrote:
>
> Larry Gene Gariepy Jr. wrote:
>
> >So what is this crap about slamming Dartmouth and the
> >other Ivy League schools?
> >But to take a remark like this and turn in into an insult
> >against me, my school, and my CONFERENCE, well perhaps
> >that says more about why the Ivies didn't take you than
> >slacking off your senior year. Everyone knows your senior year
> >grades don't matter anyway.
>
> this wide open, I can't help but point out that earlier in your
> post, you say: "I was not saying that I personally want to strip
> Maris of his record because it was a fluke. That is rediculous."
>
>
> Being a butt-insky,
>
> Mike <--- Indiana B.S., Loyola (Chicago) J.D.
Alright, I deserved that. And I appreciate your sense of humor. :)
Larry
James Weisberg
In article <19980224181...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Eramon1 <era...@aol.com> wrote:
>I believe Henderson is faster than Cobb. I also believe the arms of the
>pitchers and catchers are better now than then. I think Henderson could have
>stolen 1500 bases in the '00s and '10s. Of course everybody on any side of the
>question is guessing. But this Jim Crow business that J. Weisberg wants to
>ignore is, in fact, fundamental to the argument. If Rickey were somehow allowed
>to play he'd have been the recipient of some of the dirty play we've heard
>about from those days. I suspect he'd be battered and have his playing days cut
>short. Outside of that, though, he'd perform at or slightly above what he's
>already done.
But this doesn't get us anywhere in the debate if you just
want to focus on the color of Henderson's skin. Just *IMAGINE*
he's a white guy from rural Georgia just like Cobb and procede
from there. Cobb was the recipient of both dirty play and
severe hazing as a result of his background/age/status/demeanor.
Under those conditions, imagine Rickey Henderson entering the
league and now begin. He's going to get his legs torn up
something fierce on those playing surfaces. No one got close
to 1200 SBs. They were great baserunners. They went from
first to third, hit and ran, stole, and every other play
that requires a great deal of running and timing much more
back then to scrap a run together. No one's legs took that
kind of abuse. Not even Cobb's after 24 seasons. If there
was anyone who was going to steal at such a rate and
still be tough enough to hang around for 1200 steals, it
would have been Cobb, not Henderson.
Thomas R Scudder
James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) asieoniezi:
: If there was anyone who was going to steal at such a rate and
: would have been Cobb, not Henderson.
Would not times infinity.
Gregg Rosenberg
Thomas R Scudder (tom...@umich.edu) wrote:
: James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) asieoniezi:
: : If there was anyone who was going to steal at such a rate and
: : still be tough enough to hang around for 1200 steals, it
: : would have been Cobb, not Henderson.
:
: Would not times infinity.
I think it would have been Henderson, not Cobb.
Everyone knows Rickey is a fierce MoFo from the 'hood.
You heard it here first.
--Gregg
James Weisberg
In article <6cutm1$5...@pluto.njcc.com>,
>>playing ball in the deadball era? Assume for a second
>>that blacks and whites get along hunky-dory and go from
>>there. The conditions of the time on the ballplayer were
>>been stealing 1200+ bases.
>
>Of *course* there is. He's a much bettter base stealer than Cobb.
Why? Because he has a better SB/CS ratio? Because he
has more SBs? Neither one of those is definitive proof
that he's a much better base stealer.
>>>Two questions, James:
>>>1: Do *you* happen to know anyone who saw both Cobb and Henderson?
>
>>Gene Autry. ;-)
>
>> There were plenty of people who saw both Robinson and
>>Cobb. Jackie Robinson brought SBs back into the game. But
>>Ty Cobb was the ace baserunner of all time.
>
>But as I noted, nobody is qualified to compare the two. They played 2
>decades apart. A bigger gap than that between their peaks.
?? Bullshit nobody is qualified to compare the two!
Casey Stengel isn't qualified? Leo Durocher isn't qualified?
Branch Rickey isn't qualified? Ty Cobb himself wasn't qualified?
I can't speak for Durocher since he and Cobb didn't get along
so well, but I absolutely gaurantee you if you ask Stengel
and Rickey (the guy who brought Jackie to the Dodgers no less)
which of the two was a better baserunner, hands down no
question each would respond it was Cobb.
>> No. I don't even talk to nostalgic 90yr old people. And
>>it's not even a source of support.
>
>Then why did you ask the question?
Which question?
>>My support comes from
>>knowing about the conditions back then. No one here seems
>>willing to admit that that game was a hell of a lot tougher
>>back then. I've brought up my points which you have casually
>>dismissed.
>
>Mostly because they were silly. When you bring up longer seasons, as if
>Henderson needed the benefit of longer seasons to outsteal Cobb, what's
>the point of the discussion?
I brought up a whole host of reasons why Cobb could have
caught up with Henderson. Even if he didn't, it would have
been MUCH closer if he had longer seasons and simply played
in a greater percentage of his games. I have absolutely no
trouble believing that the cumulative total of Cobb from
his time plus Cobb from today would well eclipse Henderson
had he played in both time periods. No doubt whatsoever.
>What's to discuss? You idealize (well, in reverse) the conditions back
>then, while ignoring the conditions now which make basestealing much
>harder. You can't spike people nowadays just to steal bases. There is no
>way in hell Cobb would have stolen 900 bases if he played in the 1990s.
He wouldn't have spiked them because they wouldn't have been
in his way! Cobb *rarely* spiked people. I wish people would get
it out of their heads that Ty Cobb was some demonic baserunner
cutting and slashing his way across the field. He did that
rarely. And he *only* did it when runners were blocking the
bag or in the basepaths illegally. Rather than Albert Belle
decking the guy in Milwaukee, Cobb would run over them or
spike'em. They deserved it. They spiked him plenty of times
as well.
>The only point you have is that Cobb had worse equipment. But while that
>may have made basestealing harder on the body, it made *successful*
>basestealing easier. You ignored that.
I didn't ignore it. I accept that it made basestealing easier.
In fact, until about 1920, catchers set up even further away
from the plate, which would have given them a slightly longer
throw to 2nd and 3rd. These factors, I claim, pale in comparision
to the outright physical demands on a player back then. Rosters
were typically small (15-17 players for most of the season).
Substitutions on the field were rare, even for pitchers. Players
were *expected* to play through all kinds of ailments. It was
another world entirely. The "mollycoddled" players of today
do not face anything like that. It was a helluva lot tougher
to steal 96 bases in 1915 than it was for Henderson to steal
130 in 1982. And Cobb cut down his rate dramatically at the
end of the season to save his legs.
Unless you are willing to stop ignoring the conditions
yourself, the discussion is pointless. Ty Cobb wasn't the
only base-stealing fool to come along. There were others
as well. None of them got anywhere close to 1200 SBs. Cobb
was by far the closest. There's not one reason whatsoever
to believe Rickey Henderson could have stolen that many
bases in the deadball era. Speed is just not the issue
here. Both guys were very fast. Durability is the issue
here. No one was more durable than Cobb. If there was
some kinda ratio of performance::endurance, that boy
gets the Crown Royale!
James Weisberg
In article <K1HI.2781$N4.17...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
Thomas R Scudder <tom...@umich.edu> wrote:
>James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) asieoniezi:
>: If there was anyone who was going to steal at such a rate and
>: still be tough enough to hang around for 1200 steals, it
>: would have been Cobb, not Henderson.
>
>Would not times infinity.
I can't believe people disagree with me on this. I
understand some of the rebuff I'm facing at the reverse
end -- that Cobb would have a hard time amassing 1200
steals today -- but I cannot believe my ears that anyone
here actually thinks Henderson could have stolen 1200
bases in the deadball era. That is absolutely ludicrous!
Michael J. Sacks
On 24 Feb 1998, James Weisberg wrote:
> I can't believe people disagree with me on this. I
> understand some of the rebuff I'm facing at the reverse
> end -- that Cobb would have a hard time amassing 1200
> steals today -- but I cannot believe my ears that anyone
> here actually thinks Henderson could have stolen 1200
> bases in the deadball era. That is absolutely ludicrous!
I both agree and disagree....
First of all, I think we all have to realize that Henderson would not have
gotten the SB attempts that he did now a days in our type of baseball.
Their was much better pitching all around and Rickey isn't the greatest
hitter (he's better than average, though). OBA would be down for him. I
don't think he could steal 1200 bases in the dead ball era.
OTOH, I think James sort of exaggerates on the quality of play back
then....he mentioned something about baserunners advancing and how
everyone was a much better runnner. I think that's not true. Ty Cobb had
something on the order of 90 SB of home....no one could get a third of
that now a days...that reflects on the catching and the pitcher's holding
the runner on more than Cobb's speed since SB of home's career leaders are
all in the dead ball era. Not that I think today's players match up
overall to anything in the past, 'cause the dilution of talent is crazy,
but they weren't gods and many aspects of the game today are better than
the past.
Cobb stole near 900 because he got on base all the time with his .367
average...if Rickey was playing back then and batter .367, he'd steal over
a thousand easily....and if he played as many years in the league.
Personally, I think this argument is silly. Even more so, since it's
under a Mark McGwire subject heading....sort of like the Petagine/Grace
argument under 1998 Reds or the Mazerowski debate under IHOF 1B.
Especially the color question....the debate is over whether Rickey would
perform in the dead ball era.
Mike Sacks
Stephen Shauger
Michael J. Sacks wrote:
>
>
> Cobb stole near 900 because he got on base all the time with his .367
> average...if Rickey was playing back then and batter .367, he'd steal over
> a thousand easily....and if he played as many years in the league.
I don't want to waste to much time rebuking this, but doesn't Henderson
get on base all the time.
I thought his OBP was around .400 last year. What is he, 38? Granted,
those aren't Ty-Cobb-like numbers.
Stephen Shauger
David Marc Nieporent
In <6cvg1r$k...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:
>>: If there was anyone who was going to steal at such a rate and
>>: still be tough enough to hang around for 1200 steals, it
>>: would have been Cobb, not Henderson.
>>Would not times infinity.
>I can't believe people disagree with me on this.
Perhaps because, like all your Ty Cobb (and Joe Dimaggio) stuff, you
provide nothing to support your claim except singular out-of-context facts
and your strange obsessions.
>I understand some of the rebuff I'm facing at the reverse end -- that
>Cobb would have a hard time amassing 1200 steals today -- but I cannot
>believe my ears that anyone here actually thinks Henderson could have
>stolen 1200 bases in the deadball era. That is absolutely ludicrous!
No, James. Thinking Ty Cobb could have hit tons of home runs is
ludicrous. Thinking the greatest basestealer of all time could have
stolen more bases in a time when base stealing was emphasized more than it
is now is not ludicruous.
You're right about one thing -- I don't think he would have stolen 1200
bases. I think he would have stolen a lot more. In the deadball era,
Henderson would have been stealing a lot more frequently.
John Krempasky
Michael J. Sacks wrote in message ...
>Not that I think today's players match up
>overall to anything in the past, 'cause the dilution of talent is crazy,
Yeah, all those blacks and hispanics that play in the majors today, that
weren't allowed to in Cobb's day, have really diluted things, haven't they?
I'm firmly convinced that, say, the 1997 Blue Jays would destroy any Cobb
Tigers team you care to pick, were they to play each other.
James Weisberg
In article <6cvr22$e...@pluto.njcc.com>,
>bases. I think he would have stolen a lot more. In the deadball era,
>Henderson would have been stealing a lot more frequently.
How about I reverse this and ask you to defend that statement
which I think is absolutely insane? How much more frequently can
you attempt to steal a base than Henderson did? Are you going to
try every time you get on base? Even if he did, you completely
do not acknowledge the plain and simple truth that NO ONE attempted
that many bases back then without severe physical damage. It
just couldn't be done. How many slides with inadequate padding
on a rugged playing surface can a body take? Why is Rickey
Henderson some great exception to this? He's not. In fact,
as I have already said numerous times, he wouldn't be allowed
to use a headfirst slide. He would have been buried immediately.
Rickey Henderson has already played a smaller percentage
of his team's games than Ty Cobb did. What makes you think he
could withstand such a regiment of games under much tougher
conditions? He would have been worn out even sooner. If the
toughest of them all couldn't get over 900, neither was
Henderson. You think Henderson would just come along and
magically be better than the best basestealers of the
day and at the same time his body would render him free
from the damaging effects of playing in that era. Maybe he
would for about half a season, until guys blocked the baseline
and spiked him up and down and beaned him in route. How much
punishment do you think Rickey and his legs could take?
David Marc Nieporent
In <Pine.SOL.3.96.980224...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Michael J. Sacks <msa...@students.uiuc.edu> claimed:
>On 24 Feb 1998, James Weisberg wrote:
>> I can't believe people disagree with me on this. I
>> understand some of the rebuff I'm facing at the reverse
>> end -- that Cobb would have a hard time amassing 1200
>> steals today -- but I cannot believe my ears that anyone
>> here actually thinks Henderson could have stolen 1200
>> bases in the deadball era. That is absolutely ludicrous!
>I both agree and disagree....
>First of all, I think we all have to realize that Henderson would not have
>gotten the SB attempts that he did now a days in our type of baseball.
Huh? Why not?
>Their was much I disagree. This gives them better pitching all around
Don't be ridiculous; where did that idea come from? There wasn't "much I
disagree. This gives them better all around" *anything* then. The best
then might be as good as the best now, but the bottom was lousy.
>and Rickey isn't the greatest
>hitter (he's better than average, though).
"Better than average?" That's all you have to say about him? "Better
than average?" There's a huge gap between "the greatest hitter" and
"better than average," and Rickey is a lot closer to the former than the
latter.
>OBA would be down for him.
Why?
> I don't think he could steal 1200 bases in the dead ball era.
>OTOH, I think James sort of exaggerates on the quality of play back
>then....he mentioned something about baserunners advancing and how
>everyone was a much better runnner. I think that's not true. Ty Cobb had
>something on the order of 90 SB of home....no one could get a third of
>that now a days...that reflects on the catching and the pitcher's holding
>the runner on more than Cobb's speed since SB of home's career leaders are
>all in the dead ball era. Not that I think today's players match up
>overall to anything in the past, 'cause the dilution of talent is crazy,
>but they weren't gods and many aspects of the game today are better than
>the past.
You're confused. Talent was diluted BACK THEN. That's basically
indisputable; Steven Jay Gould has probably written the best explanation
for why. The gap between the best and worst is shrinking, not growing.
>Cobb stole near 900 because he got on base all the time with his .367
>average...if Rickey was playing back then and batter .367, he'd steal over
>a thousand easily....and if he played as many years in the league.
What does Henderson's average have to do with anything? It's OBP that's
relevant.
David Marc Nieporent
In <6cvfop$j...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>> Oh Geez, can't you people *imagine* Rickey Henderson
>>>playing ball in the deadball era? Assume for a second
>>>that blacks and whites get along hunky-dory and go from
>>>there. The conditions of the time on the ballplayer were
>>>very tough indeed. There's no way Henderson would have
>>>been stealing 1200+ bases.
>>Of *course* there is. He's a much bettter base stealer than Cobb.
> Why? Because he has a better SB/CS ratio? Because he
>has more SBs? Neither one of those is definitive proof
>that he's a much better base stealer.
It's more proof than what you provided, which was, well, nothing. Except
vague statements that baserunning is hard on a player's legs.
>>>>Two questions, James:
>>>>1: Do *you* happen to know anyone who saw both Cobb and Henderson?
>>>Gene Autry. ;-)
>>> There were plenty of people who saw both Robinson and
>>>Cobb. Jackie Robinson brought SBs back into the game. But
>>>Ty Cobb was the ace baserunner of all time.
>>But as I noted, nobody is qualified to compare the two. They played 2
>>decades apart. A bigger gap than that between their peaks.
> ?? Bullshit nobody is qualified to compare the two!
>Casey Stengel isn't qualified? Leo Durocher isn't qualified?
>Branch Rickey isn't qualified? Ty Cobb himself wasn't qualified?
Correct. Correct. Correct. Correct.
>I can't speak for Durocher since he and Cobb didn't get along
>so well, but I absolutely gaurantee you if you ask Stengel
>and Rickey (the guy who brought Jackie to the Dodgers no less)
>which of the two was a better baserunner, hands down no
>question each would respond it was Cobb.
First of all, this is made up. Your guarantees about what they "would"
say are worthless. We *know* you think Cobb is better; all these
statements do is confirm that you think it, not that he is better. I
don't know who'd they say was better.
Second, I don't *care* what they "would" say, even if you're right about
it. Which part of "they played 2 decades apart" didn't you understand?
And, really, their peaks were more than 3 decades apart. There's no
videotape. They wouldn't be comparing Cobb to Robinson. They'd be
comparing thirty year old memories of Cobb to Robinson.
>>> No. I don't even talk to nostalgic 90yr old people. And
>>>it's not even a source of support.
>>Then why did you ask the question?
> Which question?
You're the one who posed the question about people who saw both of them.
>>>My support comes from
>>>knowing about the conditions back then. No one here seems
>>>willing to admit that that game was a hell of a lot tougher
>>>back then. I've brought up my points which you have casually
>>>dismissed.
>>Mostly because they were silly. When you bring up longer seasons, as if
>>Henderson needed the benefit of longer seasons to outsteal Cobb, what's
>>the point of the discussion?
> I brought up a whole host of reasons why Cobb could have
>caught up with Henderson. Even if he didn't, it would have
>been MUCH closer if he had longer seasons and simply played
>in a greater percentage of his games. I have absolutely no
>trouble believing that the cumulative total of Cobb from
>his time plus Cobb from today would well eclipse Henderson
>had he played in both time periods. No doubt whatsoever.
I know. But your lack of doubt is not an argument. I have no doubt that
Henderson could outsteal Cobb under any conditions.
>>What's to discuss? You idealize (well, in reverse) the conditions back
>>then, while ignoring the conditions now which make basestealing much
>>harder. You can't spike people nowadays just to steal bases. There is no
>>way in hell Cobb would have stolen 900 bases if he played in the 1990s.
> He wouldn't have spiked them because they wouldn't have been
>in his way! Cobb *rarely* spiked people. I wish people would get
>it out of their heads that Ty Cobb was some demonic baserunner
>cutting and slashing his way across the field. He did that
>rarely. And he *only* did it when runners were blocking the
>bag or in the basepaths illegally. Rather than Albert Belle
>decking the guy in Milwaukee, Cobb would run over them or
>spike'em. They deserved it. They spiked him plenty of times as well.
That's nice, but just as Belle got suspended, Cobb would have, too. I'm
not saying that Cobb spiked people all the time. I'm saying that he used
his spikes to intimidate people. He couldn't do that nowadays. If he
couldn't, then he'd steal fewer bases.
>>The only point you have is that Cobb had worse equipment. But while that
>>may have made basestealing harder on the body, it made *successful*
>>basestealing easier. You ignored that.
> I didn't ignore it. I accept that it made basestealing easier.
>In fact, until about 1920, catchers set up even further away
>from the plate, which would have given them a slightly longer
>throw to 2nd and 3rd. These factors, I claim, pale in comparision
>to the outright physical demands on a player back then. Rosters
>were typically small (15-17 players for most of the season).
>Substitutions on the field were rare, even for pitchers. Players
>were *expected* to play through all kinds of ailments. It was
>another world entirely. The "mollycoddled" players of today
>do not face anything like that.
Yes, and all that argues that Henderson would have played more if he
played then. Which means even more stolen bases.
>It was a helluva lot tougher
>to steal 96 bases in 1915 than it was for Henderson to steal
>130 in 1982. And Cobb cut down his rate dramatically at the
>end of the season to save his legs.
Except that it was a lot easier to steal successfully in 1915 because of
the diluted talent and inferior catchers and such, and yet Cobb didn't
steal that successfully.
>Unless you are willing to stop ignoring the conditions
>yourself, the discussion is pointless. Ty Cobb wasn't the
>only base-stealing fool to come along. There were others
>as well. None of them got anywhere close to 1200 SBs. Cobb
>was by far the closest.
So what? Nobody *NOW* is close to 1200 SBs either. Henderson is better
than everybody now, too. I'm saying that Henderson is _better_ than Cobb.
The fact that Cobb didn't come close to 1200 SBs does not refute that. It
supports it.
>There's not one reason whatsoever
>to believe Rickey Henderson could have stolen that many
>bases in the deadball era.
That he steals more bases than anybody in history at a higher rate than
almost everyone in history isn't "one reason?"
>Speed is just not the issue
>here. Both guys were very fast. Durability is the issue
>here. No one was more durable than Cobb. If there was
>some kinda ratio of performance::endurance, that boy
>gets the Crown Royale!
You're crazy. You've just gotten finished telling us how Cobb missed such
a significant percentage of his team's games. That's not durability.
Durability: now there's where Rose had a huge advantage on Cobb.
Michael J. Sacks
On 25 Feb 1998, Gregory Bunimovich wrote:
> : Their was much better pitching all around
>
> Really? How do you know this? Because scoring was low? Then all of a sudden
> in the 20s and 30s, only a handful of pitchers pitching then could made the
> bigs 20 years earlier?
Look at adjusted stats.... I'm not going to support an argument simply
because you haven't looked up the data.
> Also, remember, that its really OBP that counts here, not slugging. A high
Look at Henderson's and Cobb's OBA and argue about it then
> Why don't they? There were 16 teams back then, 30 next year, about 1:2. But
> look at how much larger the pool is, and what percentage of current players
> are black, Hispanic, etc. Also consider consider population growth among the\
> white American population.
If you want to get into a socialogical argument with me, I'll do it, but
I'll tell you right now that your assumption that what the population is
and all that is skewed by a bunch of stuff... I'm not going to write
unless you really want to read it...
Mike Sacks
Michael J. Sacks
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, John Krempasky wrote:
> Yeah, all those blacks and hispanics that play in the majors today, that
> weren't allowed to in Cobb's day, have really diluted things, haven't they?
>
> I'm firmly convinced that, say, the 1997 Blue Jays would destroy any Cobb
> Tigers team you care to pick, were they to play each other.
Never mind that last post....I'm going to get embroiled in a socialogical
argument....
While baseball has gotten more talent by opening up the league to all
minorities and foreign countries since the 40's or so, other things have
decreased the overall talent.
First of all, is expansion....the expansion from 16 to 30 is almost 2:1,
meaning for talent to be even, there would have to be almost twice as many
qualified baseball players.
The reason this isn't so is the decline of baseball overall in the terms
of major sports....little league isn't as popular as basketball leagues or
pee wee football, or at least very diminished....semi-pro is basically
gone. Because of the way society has changed and the movement towards the
suburbs, kids don't gather groups the same way as they used to....you
can't get 18 kids together to play ball, probably not even nine, without
some organization.... you can throw around a football, shoot hockey pucks,
or play one-on-one with only two people. You can play catch too, but it's
not people see on TV.
Baseball players aren't getting the TV attention they used to....the
endorsments are going to basketball and football... kids' play the game
their heroes play.
All this basically has led, over a span of 30 years, give or take, led to
a less percentage of baseball players because of the demographic shifts
and popularity changes.
Today's players are more athletic than those in the past, but better
players? I say no.... most are tempered by the way society has changed...
they're not just earning a living and fighting to survive, they're
cashing in a lottery ticket.
So, no, IMHO that Tigers team from the dead ball area would take the Blue
Jays to school. Ty Cobb would be a different player in this era, but he'd
still kick butt. Hitting against today's fifth starters would be a piece
of cake comparatively. Adjustments for eras can only be made so far....if
today's average ERA is around 4+ and it used to be around 3, that tells
you something.
Mike Sacks
Michael J. Sacks
On 24 Feb 1998, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:
> > ?? Bullshit nobody is qualified to compare the two!
> >Casey Stengel isn't qualified? Leo Durocher isn't qualified?
> >Branch Rickey isn't qualified? Ty Cobb himself wasn't qualified?
>
> Correct. Correct. Correct. Correct.
Yep....the only person qualified is.....Dave Nieporent!
;),
Mike Sacks
Gregory Bunimovich
Michael J. Sacks (msa...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: On 24 Feb 1998, James Weisberg wrote:
: > I can't believe people disagree with me on this. I
: > understand some of the rebuff I'm facing at the reverse
: > end -- that Cobb would have a hard time amassing 1200
: > steals today -- but I cannot believe my ears that anyone
: > here actually thinks Henderson could have stolen 1200
: > bases in the deadball era. That is absolutely ludicrous!
: I both agree and disagree....
: First of all, I think we all have to realize that Henderson would not have
: gotten the SB attempts that he did now a days in our type of baseball.
Why not? Basestealing was a bigger part of the game back then. He probably
would have tried more often.
: Their was much better pitching all around
Really? How do you know this? Because scoring was low? Then all of a sudden
in the 20s and 30s, only a handful of pitchers pitching then could made the
bigs 20 years earlier?
: and Rickey isn't the greatest
: hitter (he's better than average, though).
No, you right. He's not the greatest. Williams and Ruth are definitely better
hitters. But he's much more than better than average. He's a tremendous hitter.
Also, remember, that its really OBP that counts here, not slugging. A high
slugging will actually reduce the number of chances to steal that you get. A
HR is a great hitting accomplishment, but it won't give you the chance to
steal bases.
: Not that I think today's players match up
: overall to anything in the past, 'cause the dilution of talent is crazy,
Why don't they? There were 16 teams back then, 30 next year, about 1:2. But
look at how much larger the pool is, and what percentage of current players
are black, Hispanic, etc. Also consider consider population growth among the\
white American population.
Greg
Not a Pretty Girl
As I lay dying, Michael J. Sacks (msa...@students.uiuc.edu) whispered:
: On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, John Krempasky wrote:
: While baseball has gotten more talent by opening up the league to all
: minorities and foreign countries since the 40's or so, other things have
: decreased the overall talent.
: First of all, is expansion....the expansion from 16 to 30 is almost 2:1,
: meaning for talent to be even, there would have to be almost twice as many
: qualified baseball players.
Well, including Latin America, Asia, and African
Americans, I don't think that's even questionable. To
keep pace with talent, there would have to be something
like 50 to 60 major league teams today.
: The reason this isn't so is the decline of baseball overall in the terms
: of major sports....little league isn't as popular as basketball leagues or
: pee wee football, or at least very diminished....
Maybe where you live, but this isn't true on a national basis.
: semi-pro is basically gone.
Replaced by several sets of minor leagues that are better
organized to funnel talent directly to the majors.
: Because of the way society has changed and the movement towards the
: suburbs, kids don't gather groups the same way as they used to....you
: can't get 18 kids together to play ball, probably not even nine, without
: some organization.... you can throw around a football, shoot hockey pucks,
: or play one-on-one with only two people. You can play catch too, but it's
: not people see on TV.
But playing catch and hitting in batting cages does help
develop skills, at least when I last watched baseball. In
comparison to other sports, baseball requires much less
team interaction. There are fewer pickup games, but I
don't think that means that baseball skills are going down
the tube. In high school, the best athletes play
football, basketball, and baseball for their 3
letters/year.
: Baseball players aren't getting the TV attention they used to....the
: endorsments are going to basketball and football... kids' play the game
: their heroes play.
Except for the huge numbers of youth participation in
youth baseball leagues.
: Today's players are more athletic than those in the past, but better
: players? I say no.... most are tempered by the way society has changed...
: they're not just earning a living and fighting to survive, they're
: cashing in a lottery ticket.
And yet they still do weight training and train all year
long with many players going to winter leagues to play
ball. Why do this if they're cashing in their chips so
early? And why do so many guys with 90+ mph fastballs,
decent curves, and a couple other pitches fail so
miserably in the majors? And how do defensive players
like Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel match up to their
baseball ancestors?
: So, no, IMHO that Tigers team from the dead ball area would take the Blue
: Jays to school. Ty Cobb would be a different player in this era, but he'd
: still kick butt.
Ty Cobb would be awesome, but most of his teammates would
suck. It's pretty well-established that the talent was
less even in the dead-ball era than it is now. More
likely, the Blue Jays would win and Cobb would go 3-4 with
2 SB in a losing effort.
: Hitting against today's fifth starters would be a piece
: of cake comparatively.
Call me a skeptic. Considering that pitching injuries
used to occur just as often, except that the major leagues
kept these pitchers active, even today's fifth starters
would be better than the average dead ball pitcher.
Today's pitchers can't relax against anybody in the lineup
because the average player today is so much better than he
used to be.
: Adjustments for eras can only be made so far....if
: today's average ERA is around 4+ and it used to be around 3, that tells
: you something.
Yeah. Have you seen the strike zone? It's about half as
big as it used to be and there is no high strike anymore
because the umpires are corrupt. And have you seen the hitters?
There weren't any 6'4" 240 pound hitters in the dead ball
era to match today's McGwire's, Thomas's, Thome's,
Fielder's, Canseco's, Piazza's, Walker's, McGriff's.
and Juan Gonzalez's. Put them together and add today's
new smaller hitters' parks and the average ERA is going to
shift a lot regardless of talent.
One important detail that you forgot in your sociological
assessment is the numbers. Similar to baseball, no
sociological idea is proven unless you can show that
the numbers actually follow the ideas and behaviors that you
state. In this case, the theory sounds nice, but the
people don't agree.
Disagreeingly,
Hyoun
--
\_____________ "...if you allow yourself to feel \_a___________
\_____________ the way you really feel, maybe you \___m___s_____
\_____________ won't be afraid of that feeling \_____a___a___
\_____________ anymore." \_______t___i_
\_____________ tori amos \_________e___
\_____________ \_____________
hyoun park '99E hjp...@amherst.edu http://www.amherst.edu/~hjpark
Michael David Jones
>> weren't allowed to in Cobb's day, have really diluted things, haven't they?
>> I'm firmly convinced that, say, the 1997 Blue Jays would destroy any Cobb
>> Tigers team you care to pick, were they to play each other.
>Never mind that last post....I'm going to get embroiled in a socialogical
>argument....
Your argument lives up to the standards set by your spelling.
>While baseball has gotten more talent by opening up the league to all
>minorities and foreign countries since the 40's or so, other things have
>decreased the overall talent.
>First of all, is expansion....the expansion from 16 to 30 is almost 2:1,
>meaning for talent to be even, there would have to be almost twice as many
>qualified baseball players.
Yes, and there probably are in the US alone, given (a) the population
increase from 1910 to 1990, and the fact that a large segment of the
1910 population wasn't allowed to play the game. Add in the increased
population of Latin America, Japan, Australia... plus better scouting
of all those areas, and I don't find it at all a stretch to think that
there are twice as many qualified baseball players today.
US population 1910: 92M
US population 1990: 256M
Last time I looked, 256 was more than twice 92.
>The reason this isn't so is the decline of baseball overall in the terms
>of major sports....little league isn't as popular as basketball leagues or
>pee wee football, or at least very diminished....semi-pro is basically
>gone. Because of the way society has changed and the movement towards the
>suburbs, kids don't gather groups the same way as they used to....you
>can't get 18 kids together to play ball, probably not even nine, without
>some organization.... you can throw around a football, shoot hockey pucks,
>or play one-on-one with only two people. You can play catch too, but it's
>not people see on TV.
This is just silly on several counts. When I was growing up, we played
"baseball" (i.e., games with a baseball, bat, and gloves, including
"rolybat" and "500" as well as pick up games) with pretty much any
quantity of kids from 5 to 25. I don't suppose you have any
participation data to back up the statement that little league is less
popular than basketball or football leagues?
Moreover, what does the popularity of youth leagues have to do with
the universe of qualified athletes?
>Baseball players aren't getting the TV attention they used to....the
>endorsments are going to basketball and football... kids' play the game
>their heroes play.
OK, now reconcile that factoid with this one: in 1997, Ken Griffey Jr.
got more All-Star votes than Michael Jordan. In fact, he got more than
were cast in the entire NBA All-Star balloting.
>All this basically has led, over a span of 30 years, give or take, led to
>a less percentage of baseball players because of the demographic shifts
>and popularity changes.
To the extent that this conclusion follows from the argument above, it
does so furtively and at a great distance. Your initial claims about
basic population size in the US alone are wrong, and the rest of your
claims are unsubstantiated.
>Today's players are more athletic than those in the past, but better
>players? I say no.... most are tempered by the way society has changed...
>they're not just earning a living and fighting to survive, they're
>cashing in a lottery ticket.
And this means....? You don't think that someone who can make $5M/year
doing something will be more motivated to improve at it than someone
who's making $15K/year and has to worry about finding another job in
the offseason?
>So, no, IMHO that Tigers team from the dead ball area would take the Blue
>Jays to school. Ty Cobb would be a different player in this era, but he'd
>still kick butt. Hitting against today's fifth starters would be a piece
>of cake comparatively. Adjustments for eras can only be made so far....if
>today's average ERA is around 4+ and it used to be around 3, that tells
>you something.
Well, for starters today's fifth starters generally throw sliders
which Cobb never saw in his life. Somehow, I don't think that would be
a "piece of cake" compared to pitching against (for example) all of
the Washington Senators' pitchers (except Walter Johnson).
And if you think that ERAs being a run higher today than in the *DEAD
BALL* era is significant, you really need to go spend three or four
years thinking about it before you post again. Or you could start a
brilliant career as a sportswriter.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Success is a journey, not a destination.
NawrockiT
JonAvins wrote:
: In article <6cvg1r$k...@miso.wwa.com>, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com says...
: >
: > I can't believe people disagree with me on this. I
: >understand some of the rebuff I'm facing at the reverse
: >end -- that Cobb would have a hard time amassing 1200
: >steals today -- but I cannot believe my ears that anyone
: >here actually thinks Henderson could have stolen 1200
: >bases in the deadball era. That is absolutely ludicrous!
: Why, because you think Henderson is a "mollycoddled" wimp? Because you
: vociferously believe that Cobb would vociferously believe that Cobb was
better
: than Henderson? Because you think somehow the skills that have made Henderson
: the most successful base stealer of all time would evaporate or at least
become
: futile in an age when "real men" fought the war of baseball rather than
played
: the game of baseball? Because you think Henderson would be far less able to
: steal against the far more limited player pool of then than of now?
: Because...because...because..why? Can you make even one argument, even just
one
: *lousy* argument, as oppossed to a hundred different ways of telling us all
over
: and over what you "believe"?
: You want to argue, than argue the damn point. All you do is shout like a
bloody
: evangelical, "I Believe! I Believe! Say Hallelujah, Cobb is the One!" That's
not
: an argument, that's a damn religion. Your faith in Cobb is meaningless, your
: impassioned "testimony" to his Greatness irrelevant.
This explains why it's so fruitless to argue with Weisberg. He starts with the
proposition that Cobb Is the Greatest of All Time, which means by definition no
other player could ever approach what he accomplished. Anything Cobb didn't do
was either because he didn't want to or because circumstances prevented him
from doing so. So...
Cobb could have outstolen Rickey Henderson, if only he had had sliding pads and
didn't have to play so many darn doubleheaders.
Cobb could have outhomered Ruth, if only he had gotten to play in Yankee
Stadium and had thought hitting homers was a good thing.
Cobb could have gotten more hits than Rose, if only he had realized some punk
would eventually come along and break his record.
Cobb could have dominated against the best Negro Leaguers, if only he weren't
so competitive that he walked off the field after getting thrown out stealing.
Cobb could have won more games than Cy Young, if only he weren't saving his arm
for the postseason.
Cobb could have invented the semiconductor, if only he had been given access to
the right materials.
Cobb could have written "The Grapes of Wrath," if only he had the patience to
sit down and actually write 600 pages worth of text.
Cobb could have removed his own liver without anesthesia and lived to tell the
tale, if only he had realized that people would be impressed by this.
Cobb could have been more evil than Hitler, if only there had been enough Jews
in turn-of-the-century Georgia.
How can anyone even try to argue any of this?
Tom Nawrocki
Doug Riblet
"Michael J. Sacks" <msa...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Not that I think today's players match up
>overall to anything in the past, 'cause the dilution of talent is crazy,
When people say this about the 1950s, it's mistaken. Saying this
about Cobb's era is just plain nutso.
In Cobb's time there were 16 teams drawing on a talent pool consisting
of all the white players in North America.
By Henderson's time, the world's population had increased enormously;
the exclusion of black players was eliminated; scouting in Latin
America had greatly increased the talent pool; and better sports
medicine keeps injured players in the game longer. Towards the end
of Henderson's career, there has also been an influx of players from
Cuba, Australia and Asia.
Major League Baseball would have to expand to 120 teams to match
the level of "dilution" in Cobbs day.
-----------------------------------------
Doug Riblet / dbri...@students.wisc.edu
http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~dbriblet/
James Weisberg
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980224...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>
I'll chime in here again. Henderson had a very good OBA but
I think one should consider that he has an OBA because of his
walk totals, not his ability to hit for high average. I'll
go ahead and make the claim that walk totals as a whole
were significantly less during the deadball era. I haven't
done a formal study on that but my quick glance at the
league totals seems to confirm that. Secondly, the strike
zone was larger. Henderson would not have benefitted as
much from his crouched stance.
Therefore, unless Henderson hit much much better for
average, he wouldn't have been on base any more. Therefore,
if he was going to steal more bases, it would have to be
at a greater rate of no more than the same number of times
on base. Now I have no trouble believing that Henderson
could adapt to deadball era base-stealing tactics and
achieve an even higher degree of success. However, I have
a very hard time believing he could keep that up for a
12-15 seasons or more and rack up 1200 SBs+. That just
seems completely ludicrous to me. No one here seems to
want to admit that Henderson would be a walking scar
with a propensity to steal that much. It's not as if
deadball players would stand idly by and let him take
base after base without doing something about it. They
play rough, you see. Nothing like what you are used to
watching today.
James Weisberg
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980224...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Michael J. Sacks <msa...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >Casey Stengel isn't qualified? Leo Durocher isn't qualified?
>> >Branch Rickey isn't qualified? Ty Cobb himself wasn't qualified?
>>
>> Correct. Correct. Correct. Correct.
>
Yeah, David pretty much casts doubt on all of history with
that logic. Our entire view of history is based on accounts
decades or even centuries old. Evidently, a man can't do his
job for 30yrs and still remember two players distinctly.
Oddly enough, I know many a professor sharp as a tack after
many more years teaching than that.
So I guess nothing but the stats are worthwhile. It doesn't
matter that both Casey Stengel and Branch Rickey, two highly
respected men who ate baseball for breakfast, lunch, and dinner
and saw both men play, couldn't make an adequate assessment of
the talents of Ty Cobb and Jackie Robinson 30yrs apart.
James Weisberg
In article <6d0d5s$2b...@alumni.rpi.edu>,
Michael David Jones <jon...@alumni.rpi.edu> wrote:
>Well, for starters today's fifth starters generally throw sliders
>which Cobb never saw in his life. Somehow, I don't think that would be
>a "piece of cake" compared to pitching against (for example) all of
>the Washington Senators' pitchers (except Walter Johnson).
Well, one thing that can be said of Cobb though that's pretty
much undeniable, is that he didn't just hit the bad pitchers. He
hit everyone. The worst I have found so far is Doc White at .278.
I should really go back and write down all his averages that I
have come across. I know he hit .300 or better againt Plank,
Waddell, Leonard, Ruth, and Johnson. Some of these are small
sample sizes, but he pretty much hit everyone, lefty or righty,
good or bad. I don't think he'd have much problem against the
slider. He was hitting blackened spitballs without the benefits
of modern day lighting long before that.
Stephen Shauger
Michael J. Sacks wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, John Krempasky wrote:
>
> > Yeah, all those blacks and hispanics that play in the majors today, that
> > weren't allowed to in Cobb's day, have really diluted things, haven't they?
> >
> > I'm firmly convinced that, say, the 1997 Blue Jays would destroy any Cobb
> > Tigers team you care to pick, were they to play each other.
>
> Never mind that last post....I'm going to get embroiled in a socialogical
> argument....
>
> minorities and foreign countries since the 40's or so, other things have
> decreased the overall talent.
>
> First of all, is expansion....the expansion from 16 to 30 is almost 2:1,
> meaning for talent to be even, there would have to be almost twice as many
> qualified baseball players.
The population of this country is twice as big. We include a whole race
that we didn't used to. We are pulling in the best players from
populations all over the world.
>
> The reason this isn't so is the decline of baseball overall in the terms
> of major sports....little league isn't as popular as basketball leagues or
> pee wee football, or at least very diminished....semi-pro is basically
Little League is diminished from Cobb's era? Are you crazy??
> gone. Because of the way society has changed and the movement towards the
> suburbs, kids don't gather groups the same way as they used to....you
> can't get 18 kids together to play ball, probably not even nine, without
> some organization.... you can throw around a football, shoot hockey pucks,
> or play one-on-one with only two people. You can play catch too, but it's
> not people see on TV.
This is an interesting sociological point. However, it raises a few
questions. Do ballplayers come from the suburbs or from the cities.
Or from the country. To what extent exactly. Not to detract from what
you are saying; just questions.
>
> Baseball players aren't getting the TV attention they used to....the
> endorsments are going to basketball and football... kids' play the game
> their heroes play.
>
Baseball players aren't getting the TV attention they used to in Cobb's
era?
> All this basically has led, over a span of 30 years, give or take, led to
> a less percentage of baseball players because of the demographic shifts
> and popularity changes.
>
> Today's players are more athletic than those in the past, but better
> players? I say no.... most are tempered by the way society has changed...
> they're not just earning a living and fighting to survive, they're
> cashing in a lottery ticket.
>
Do you really think that you don't have to work at being athletic, or to
be a baseball player. Even Griffey isn't just cashing in a lottery
ticket.
> So, no, IMHO that Tigers team from the dead ball area would take the Blue
> Jays to school. Ty Cobb would be a different player in this era, but he'd
> still kick butt. Hitting against today's fifth starters would be a piece
> of cake comparatively. Adjustments for eras can only be made so far....if
> today's average ERA is around 4+ and it used to be around 3, that tells
> you something.
>
> Mike Sacks
You ingore at least one other significant effect. Players like Mike
Easler, Ken Phelps, Geronimo Berroa (had they all been white), jeez you
can think of 100 players who fit this bill, though not to the extent of
the three
above, would not have made the majors. They would have gotten a shot or
two, hit .200 in 50 at bats and then they would have been forgotten,
forever playing in Peoria or Kenosha or worse (meaning farther from a
major league city) Atlanta or Houston or San Francisco. Today, because
of the farm system, love it or hate it, the cream generally rises to
the top.
Hitting today's fifth starters is easy because, anything above the waste
is a ball. Go out and watch a game. And throwing up and in can get you
tossed from the game (that is not necessarily a bad policy, just
different).
Stephen Shauger
Stephen Shauger
Michael J. Sacks wrote:
>
>
> So, no, IMHO that Tigers team from the dead ball area would take the Blue
> Jays to school. Ty Cobb would be a different player in this era, but he'd
> still kick butt. Hitting against today's fifth starters would be a piece
> of cake comparatively. Adjustments for eras can only be made so far....if
> today's average ERA is around 4+ and it used to be around 3, that tells
> you something.
>
> Mike Sacks
There was one more point that I wanted to make. I don't want to make
too big a deal out of this, because of course we are in a high offense
era (Is four years an era?). Come to think of it, most of Henderson's
career is outside this era. Sorry, tangent; what I meant to say is that
one reason the era's were so low then is that more runs were classified
as unearned. They had different standards for errors then and the
equipment was different.
Stephen Shauger
Paul G. Wenthold
"Hey Ty, have you ever been sucked into a black hole? I have."
---the guy on Saturday Night Live doing a Harry Cary impression
(which goes down as my favorite memory of HC, a HC impression)
paul
--
"They are only miracles to those who have never balanced
an oxidation-reduction equation."---James Earl Jones
James Weisberg
In article <6d15et$g...@drn.newsguy.com>, <jav...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <6cvg1r$k...@miso.wwa.com>, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com says...
>vociferously believe that Cobb would vociferously believe that Cobb was better
>than Henderson?
Maybe you should try reading. Maybe *everyone* should try
reading what I'm writing. That word is Cobb's. Not mine. But
I use it to illustrate a point here. No matter whether or not
you think Rickey Henderson is a mollycoddled wimp, the fact
of the matter is that playing ball back then was absolutely
NOT for mollycoddled wimps!
The tactics of stealing a base were no different. You had
to study the pitcher, know his move, get a good lead and a
good jump, and make a good slide. Ty Cobb revolutionalized
some of that, however. Fielders would block the bag frequently
and Cobb used his spikes to make them get out of his way.
Fielders retaliated. They spiked him back. It was a war of
attrition. The more crazy and fierce his play, the more
fielders would make mistakes and shy away from confronting
him. That was the world Ty Cobb domintated. It wasn't for
mollycoddlers. In his second game he tried to steal a base
with a headfirst slide. Kid Elberfeld gave him the "teach".
He stuck his knee in Cobb's neck and ground his face in the
dirt while tagging him out. Welcome to the big leagues. The
next series with the Highlanders, Cobb slid so hard *feet*
first into second that he knocked Elberfeld onto the grass.
"Son, that's how it's done -- you've got it", he said, "More
power to you."
That was deadball era baseball. It was brutal on the
body. That's the world Rickey Henderson would be a part
of. He would have had to deal with that. No matter how
great Henderson was at getting on base, reading a pitcher,
and getting a jump, he still would have to deal with the
rigors of play in that era. They were unquestionably more
harsh than today. It can't be ignored. To think that
Henderson would steal just as many bases back then to
me seems beyond ridiculous.
James Weisberg
In article <19980225152...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
NawrockiT <nawr...@aol.com> wrote:
>Cobb could have outstolen Rickey Henderson, if only he had had sliding pads and
>didn't have to play so many darn doubleheaders.
>
>Cobb could have outhomered Ruth, if only he had gotten to play in Yankee
>Stadium and had thought hitting homers was a good thing.
I'll make a concession. He couldn't have done both. One
or the other.
>Cobb could have gotten more hits than Rose, if only he had realized some punk
>would eventually come along and break his record.
No one has disputed that. All he needed to do was play the
162 game schedule for that.
>Cobb could have dominated against the best Negro Leaguers, if only he weren't
>so competitive that he walked off the field after getting thrown out stealing.
He still performed well then. His team still won.
>Cobb could have won more games than Cy Young, if only he weren't saving his arm
>for the postseason.
Okay, funny boy.
>Cobb could have invented the semiconductor, if only he had been given access to
>the right materials.
Yeah, maybe.
>Cobb could have written "The Grapes of Wrath," if only he had the patience to
>sit down and actually write 600 pages worth of text.
Nah, but he probably read it, which is more than can be
said for 99% of ML ballplayers. He educated himself quite
nicely.
>Cobb could have removed his own liver without anesthesia and lived to tell the
>tale, if only he had realized that people would be impressed by this.
Cobb suffered three days of tonsilectomy without anesthesia,
from a "doctor" who didn't even have proper tools. The guy just
ripped pieces of swollen tissue out of his throat until he
choked on his own blood or passed out. Guess what? Cobb was in
the game the next day collecting a base hit! And this wasn't
even the only case of him getting fixed up without anesthetic.
Perhaps you are not impressed by this, but his doctors and
teammates certainly were!
>Cobb could have been more evil than Hitler, if only there had been enough Jews
>in turn-of-the-century Georgia.
The guy was fascinated by Caesar and Napoleon...
>How can anyone even try to argue any of this?
With a discussion of more than just stats. Oddly enough,
historians and literary critics seem to get along fine this
way. Unless you are willing to open yourself up to more than
what's written in TB, then I guess there is no way for you
to try arguing.
jav...@newsguy.com
In article <6d1i3g$r...@miso.wwa.com>, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com says...
>
>In article <6d15et$g...@drn.newsguy.com>, <jav...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <6cvg1r$k...@miso.wwa.com>, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com says...
>>Why, because you think Henderson is a "mollycoddled" wimp? Because you
>>vociferously believe that Cobb would vociferously believe that Cobb was better
>>than Henderson?
>
> Maybe you should try reading.
James, just for kicks, and because I believe you are sincere in this even if a
tad sloppy in the reasoning department, I'm going to take you through this step
by step.
>No matter whether or not
>you think Rickey Henderson is a mollycoddled wimp, the fact
>of the matter is that playing ball back then was absolutely
>NOT for mollycoddled wimps!
Step 1: The fact that playing ball back then was "NOT for mollycoddled wimps" is
only relevant to the argument if you can somehow establish that Henderson is a
mollycoddled wimp. Good luck as far as that goes. If you can't establish it,
then the whole issue is completely irrelevant. Delete it from your argument and
please don't bring it up again.
> The tactics of stealing a base were no different. You had
>to study the pitcher, know his move, get a good lead and a
>good jump, and make a good slide. Ty Cobb revolutionalized
>some of that, however.
Step 2: The fact that Ty Cobb revolutionzed the art of base stealing does not
effect Henderson's ability to steal bases. It may be a good reason to admire
Cobb, but it provides no support at all for any kind of evaluation of Henderson.
It is irrelevant to the argument, so you can delete it for thses purposes, and
please don't bring it up again in regard to Henderson. Accordingly, I snip all
the stuff you wrote in this paragraph about fierceness and spiking and
domination and wars of attrition and Kid Elberfeld (cute, that; not much good in
an argument but nice bending the elbow story anyway). You can skip that stuff
too. It doesn't bear on Henderson, unless you establish that Henderson would not
be up to it (see Point 1 on mollycoddling wimps above).
> That was deadball era baseball. It was brutal on the
>body. That's the world Rickey Henderson would be a part
>of.
Point 3: Right! Now, you're ready, you've established the factual predicate. So
what's the punch line, what's the point? You have to base a conclusion about
Henderson on this factual predicate, and I suspect you'll need to say something
about Henederson (other than the fact that his name's not Ty Cobb) to do it.
>He would have had to deal with that. No matter how
>great Henderson was at getting on base, reading a pitcher,
>and getting a jump, he still would have to deal with the
>rigors of play in that era.
Yes...? What about it?
>They were unquestionably more
>harsh than today. It can't be ignored.
Nor can it be endlessly repeated as if repetition itself establishes an
argument.
>To think that
>Henderson would steal just as many bases back then to
>me seems beyond ridiculous.
That's because you stop thinking just when you should begin. You establish half
the factual predicate, neglect to examine the other half (Henderson) and fail to
analyze any of it. James, what about the fact that Henderson is undoubtedly in
far superior physical condition than any of the players alive in the deadball
era? What about the fact that he had the benfit of standing on the shoulders of
the great revolutionary basestealers who preceeded him? What about the fact that
the player pool of that day was so much less rich than it is today, so that
Henderson has stolen his bases against far more skilled and talented if less
vicious players than did Cobb? And why the implict assumptions in your
conclusion that it's ridiculous to think Henderson could steal as many or more
then than he did now? That is, what about this mollycoddling wimp business you
love so much? Do you really want to maintain that if he needed to be, Henderson
could not harness his fierce "MoFo from the 'hood" background, as some other
poster in this thread pointed out, and intimidate the bejeezus out of some poor
slob farmboy trying to guard second base?
I assure you James, I can read pretty well. The thing is, you never give me
anything to go on. Your whole position boils down to the following:
a) Play was more vicous and circumstances less kind in the deadball era.
b) Rickey Henderson could not steal as many bases in the deadball era as he did
in the modern era.
That's all you've given me. I hope you see there's a bit of a missing link in
your reasoning. There is just assertion, no argument.
Jon Avins
PHSpiegel2
Jon Avins <jav...@home.now> wrote:
>Two questions, James:
>1: Do *you* happen to know anyone who saw both Cobb and Henderson?
I'm only half-way through this thread, so please excuse me if I'm repeating
something that someone else has written already...
Shirley Povich, famed sportswriter for the Washington Post who still
contributes every month or so with a semi-interesting column, saw both play. He
actually wrote a column about Mays vs. Cobb about six months ago that got so
much mail that the Post had to devote an entire page to the letters. Povich
basically said the same thing that James has asserted in the Henderson debate:
That anyone who saw Cobb play knows that he was better than Mays. And Povich
saw Cobb play. He still follows baseball, so he's obviously also seen Henderson
play. He's never written about Cobb vs. Henderson, though, as far as I know.
- Peter (phspi...@aol.com)
David Marc Nieporent
In <dbriblet-270...@f209-063.net.wisc.edu>,
Doug Riblet <dbri...@students.wisc.edu> claimed:
>"Michael J. Sacks" <msa...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>Not that I think today's players match up
>>overall to anything in the past, 'cause the dilution of talent is crazy,
>When people say this about the 1950s, it's mistaken. Saying this
>about Cobb's era is just plain nutso.
>In Cobb's time there were 16 teams drawing on a talent pool consisting
>of all the white players in North America.
You understate your case. In Cobb's time the talent pool consisted of
the subset of white players who actually got discovered. There was no USA
Today or Baseball America or whatever listing the top high school and
collegiate prospects nationwide.
Major League Baseball wasn't even a national sport; it was regional.
While that didn't prevent the majors from recruiting talent nationally,
I've got to imagine it hindered it.
And we haven't even touched on the fact that the minors were independent
in Cobb's day, meaning that there were quality players who didn't play
in the majors because there was no automatic promotion system the way
there is today.
>By Henderson's time, the world's population had increased enormously;
>the exclusion of black players was eliminated; scouting in Latin
>America had greatly increased the talent pool; and better sports
>medicine keeps injured players in the game longer. Towards the end
>of Henderson's career, there has also been an influx of players from
>Cuba, Australia and Asia.
>Major League Baseball would have to expand to 120 teams to match
>the level of "dilution" in Cobbs day.
I'd argue more than that, but that's a reasonable compromise estimate,
yeah.
Gregg Rosenberg
James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
:
: With a discussion of more than just stats. Oddly enough,
: historians and literary critics seem to get along fine this
: way. Unless you are willing to open yourself up to more than
: what's written in TB, then I guess there is no way for you
: to try arguing.
I have already established that Rickey Henderson is a fierce
MoFo from the 'hood. Ain't no white man who ever lived as tough
as my homeboy.
I have yet to see you counter my arguments.
Historians and literary critics get along famously this way.
--Gregg
David Marc Nieporent
In <Pine.SOL.3.96.980224...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Michael J. Sacks <msa...@students.uiuc.edu> claimed:
>On 25 Feb 1998, Gregory Bunimovich wrote:
>> : Their was much better pitching all around
>> Really? How do you know this? Because scoring was low? Then all of a sudden
>> in the 20s and 30s, only a handful of pitchers pitching then could made the
>> bigs 20 years earlier?
>Look at adjusted stats.... I'm not going to support an argument simply
>because you haven't looked up the data.
Can you be a little more vague? Look at what stats, adjusted how?
>>Also, remember, that its really OBP that counts here, not slugging. A high
>Look at Henderson's and Cobb's OBA and argue about it then
Cobb's was .433; Henderson's is .406. It's a difference, but it's not as
big as the batting average difference would suggest.
>> Why don't they? There were 16 teams back then, 30 next year, about 1:2. But
>> look at how much larger the pool is, and what percentage of current players
>> are black, Hispanic, etc. Also consider consider population growth among the
>> white American population.
>If you want to get into a socialogical argument with me, I'll do it, but
>I'll tell you right now that your assumption that what the population is
>and all that is skewed by a bunch of stuff... I'm not going to write
>unless you really want to read it...
And your assumptions aren't skewed by anything?
David Marc Nieporent
In <6d1f9p$m...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:
>>> James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:
>>> > ?? Bullshit nobody is qualified to compare the two!
>>> >Casey Stengel isn't qualified? Leo Durocher isn't qualified?
>>> >Branch Rickey isn't qualified? Ty Cobb himself wasn't qualified?
>>> Correct. Correct. Correct. Correct.
>>Yep....the only person qualified is.....Dave Nieporent!
Who said that?
> Yeah, David pretty much casts doubt on all of history with
>that logic. Our entire view of history is based on accounts
>decades or even centuries old.
No, it isn't. Good history is based on accounts and documents created
contemporaneously with the events, or as near as possible.
>Evidently, a man can't do his
>job for 30yrs and still remember two players distinctly.
>Oddly enough, I know many a professor sharp as a tack after
>many more years teaching than that.
> So I guess nothing but the stats are worthwhile. It doesn't
>matter that both Casey Stengel and Branch Rickey, two highly
>respected men who ate baseball for breakfast, lunch, and dinner
>and saw both men play, couldn't make an adequate assessment of
>the talents of Ty Cobb and Jackie Robinson 30yrs apart.
Correct. It doesn't matter how much baseball you watch. It doesn't
matter whether you invented the game of baseball singlehandedly. It
doesn't matter if you're Richard Feynman, Branch Rickey, Earl Weaver, and
Albert Einstein all rolled into one.
This has nothing to do with baseball knowledge or intelligence. Thirty
year old memories are not accurate. The human memory is a lot less
reliable than you seem to think it is. I can recommend some reading on
the subject if you're interested. What you'd be comparing is memories of
three or four stolen bases of Cobb's to three or four of Jackie
Robinson's. If that many.
David Marc Nieporent
>> Yeah, all those blacks and hispanics that play in the majors today, that
>> weren't allowed to in Cobb's day, have really diluted things, haven't they?
>> I'm firmly convinced that, say, the 1997 Blue Jays would destroy any Cobb
>> Tigers team you care to pick, were they to play each other.
>Never mind that last post....I'm going to get embroiled in a socialogical
>argument....
>While baseball has gotten more talent by opening up the league to all
>minorities and foreign countries since the 40's or so, other things have
>decreased the overall talent.
>First of all, is expansion....the expansion from 16 to 30 is almost 2:1,
>meaning for talent to be even, there would have to be almost twice as many
>qualified baseball players.
Right, and there's much more than that.
>The reason this isn't so is the decline of baseball overall in the terms
>of major sports....little league isn't as popular as basketball leagues or
>pee wee football, or at least very diminished....
Evidence?
>semi-pro is basically
>gone.
And college ball exists.
>Because of the way society has changed and the movement towards the
>suburbs, kids don't gather groups the same way as they used to....you
>can't get 18 kids together to play ball, probably not even nine, without
>some organization.... you can throw around a football, shoot hockey pucks,
>or play one-on-one with only two people. You can play catch too, but it's
>not people see on TV.
Who needs 18 people to play baseball?
>Baseball players aren't getting the TV attention they used to....the
>endorsments are going to basketball and football... kids' play the game
>their heroes play.
Except that baseball gets far more attention on TV than basketball. And
far far more attendance.
>All this basically has led, over a span of 30 years, give or take, led to
>a less percentage of baseball players because of the demographic shifts
>and popularity changes.
But you haven't provided any real evidence of popularity changes.
Baseball is *more* popular now, not less. (The fact that other sports may
also be more popular than they used to be is irrelevant.) There's more
baseball on TV than ever before. More attendance. More teams.
>Today's players are more athletic than those in the past, but better
>players? I say no.... most are tempered by the way society has changed...
>they're not just earning a living and fighting to survive, they're
>cashing in a lottery ticket.
I don't understand your point here. So what?
>So, no, IMHO that Tigers team from the dead ball area would take the Blue
>Jays to school. Ty Cobb would be a different player in this era, but he'd
>still kick butt. Hitting against today's fifth starters would be a piece
>of cake comparatively. Adjustments for eras can only be made so far....if
>today's average ERA is around 4+ and it used to be around 3, that tells
>you something.
Yeah, it tells you that today's average ERA is around 4+ and it used to be
around 3. That's all it tells you. ERAs change because of
external conditions. Try looking at ERAs in the 30s.
James Weisberg
Here is a much longer post on this subject. Since I didn't get
bogged down in 3rd base voting, I have spent the time here
even though I said I don't want to get embroiled in this
argument. I hope those of you who read it will do so with
an open mind and a renewed vigor. I have made some attempt
to put into hard numbers what Cobb managed to achieve in his
SB records of the era. I am sure much more could be done.
Enjoy.
In article <6d1md7$6...@drn.newsguy.com>, <jav...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <6d1i3g$r...@miso.wwa.com>, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com says...
>> Maybe you should try reading.
>
>James, just for kicks, and because I believe you are sincere in this even if a
>tad sloppy in the reasoning department, I'm going to take you through this step
>by step.
Okay. next time could you post smaller line lengths though?
>>No matter whether or not
>>you think Rickey Henderson is a mollycoddled wimp, the fact
>>of the matter is that playing ball back then was absolutely
>>NOT for mollycoddled wimps!
>
>Step 1: The fact that playing ball back then was "NOT for mollycoddled wimps"
>is only relevant to the argument if you can somehow establish that Henderson
>is a mollycoddled wimp. Good luck as far as that goes. If you can't establish
>it, then the whole issue is completely irrelevant. Delete it from your
>argument and please don't bring it up again.o
Now how exasperated do I need to get when your Step 1 isn't
even addressing what I've been trying to say? I asked you to
try reading what I was writing and evidently that is somewhat
burdensome. If you look look at the paragraph right above your
Step 1, I clearly state that it doesn't make a difference
whether or not your think Henderson is a mollycoddled wimp.
Therefore, I am not even trying to establish that he is! I
know that's pointless. What I have tried to establish is that
playing in that era was significantly more harsh on the body.
This would obviously affect Henderson. That has been and
always will be my starting point.
>> The tactics of stealing a base were no different. You had
>>to study the pitcher, know his move, get a good lead and a
>>good jump, and make a good slide. Ty Cobb revolutionalized
>>some of that, however.
>
>Step 2: The fact that Ty Cobb revolutionized the art of base stealing does not
>effect Henderson's ability to steal bases. It may be a good reason to admire
>Cobb, but it provides no support at all for any kind of evaluation of
>Henderson. It is irrelevant to the argument, so you can delete it for
>thses purposes, and please don't bring it up again in regard to Henderson.
Refute 2: You want me to give you more of an argument beyond my
starting point yet you refuse to look at it when it's right
there staring you in the face. Rickey Henderson would NOT have
been able to use the headfirst slide. Rickey Henderson would
NOT have clear shots to the bag on every attempt. In his
autobiography, Cobb makes an excellent point that basestealers
of the later generations have completely missed the time when
twisting your body out of the way of a tag was commonplace.
Today, you *rarely* see anything but a deliberate, straight
ahead slide to the bag. That's because the fielders are not
in the way, and the runner commits his slide well before
the fielder even receives the ball.
In Cobb's day, he revolutionized the ability to read
the fielder's eyes and turn his body away from where he
knew the ball would arrive. He slid at the very last
instant into the bag, leaving only a toe to swipe at.
The only time he spiked people was when the runner was
directly in his way, which is legally interference, but
something umpires back then rarely called. The umpire
was rarely in position to make such a call anyway.
Henderson would have to learn these long forgotten
abilities in order to be a great basestealer back then.
Simply beating the throw to the bag was not enough.
Fielders would deliberately step on you and block
your path and stuff the ball in your gut. It was
pretty rough. Even if he used 1990s tactics of stealing
bases in the 1910s, he would have been successful, but
the toll on his body would have been enormous.
>Accordingly, I snip all
>the stuff you wrote in this paragraph about fierceness and spiking and
>domination and wars of attrition and Kid Elberfeld (cute, that; not much
>good in an argument but nice bending the elbow story anyway). You can skip
>that stuff too. It doesn't bear on Henderson, unless you establish that
>Henderson would not be up to it (see Point 1 on mollycoddling wimps above).
Refute 3: You completely missed it again. The point of that story
was not to show Henderson was a mollycoddled wimp. It was to
further illustrate the arena he would be stepping into -- one
which is foreign to his style of play. Even if he learns to
adopt deadball era practices, one CANNOT avoid the damage it
does to the body. Henderson ain't superman! Like I already
said, he has played in fewer of his team's games percentage-wise
than Cobb did. What makes you think his body would be up to
an even greater challenge back then?
I can't establish beyond a doubt that "Henderson would not
be up to it". But I can establish that NO ONE else was up to
it! If the toughest players of the day couldn't match Cobb's
extreme durability/longevity/performance, why would I possibly
think one of today's players could?
>> That was deadball era baseball. It was brutal on the
>>body. That's the world Rickey Henderson would be a part
>>of.
>
>Point 3: Right! Now, you're ready, you've established the factual predicate. So
>what's the punch line, what's the point? You have to base a conclusion about
>Henderson on this factual predicate, and I suspect you'll need to say something
>about Henederson (other than the fact that his name's not Ty Cobb) to do it.
I established this eons ago. At least you recognize it finally.
I have tried to show where and how this would affect Henderson.
In between inane responses about Henderson wouldn't even by allowed
to play back then, the crux of my argument was that the brutal
conditions didn't bode very well for would-be basestealers. They
had a hard task ahead of them. Physically, it is much easier to
steal 1200 bases today than 1200 bases then.
>>They were unquestionably more
>>harsh than today. It can't be ignored.
>
>Nor can it be endlessly repeated as if repetition itself establishes an
>argument.
Well then help me out. How do you quantify grit? If
you agree the times were more physically challenging then
you can't ignore what affect that will have. The problem
is obviously quantifying it. I will work on that some more
and come up with a measure.
>>To think that
>>Henderson would steal just as many bases back then to
>>me seems beyond ridiculous.
>
>That's because you stop thinking just when you should begin. You establish
>half the factual predicate, neglect to examine the other half (Henderson)
>and fail to analyze any of it.
I haven't failed to analyze it. I have failed to produce a
conclusion which can be measured directly. I have analyzed the
differences. I have commented on them. I have not QUANTIFIED
them.
>James, what about the fact that Henderson is undoubtedly in
>far superior physical condition than any of the players alive in the deadball
>era?
That's not even a consideration. How long would he *remain*
in far superior physical condition after a decade or more of
play back then? He doesn't get to work out in 1998 and play
1910-style games in the meanwhile. Henderson gets to live
and breath baseball of the deadball era. How long does his
physical dominance last? I doubt very long.
>What about the fact that he had the benfit of standing on the shoulders of
>the great revolutionary basestealers who preceeded him?
As I explained, it's not even the same anymore. I can
just imagine Henderson flying down to second and diving
headfirst into the bag. SLAM! "Ouch, why does my neck hurt?
Why is my nose bleeding? I guess I better not do that
again." The next time he tries feet first. BANG! "Why is
that guy in my way? Why ain't I safe for interference?"
Third try. "Fuck'em. I'll go in with my spikes this time
That'll teach them!" SPIKE! "Ouch. That asshole spiked
me!"
He would have a lot to learn.
>What about the fact that
>the player pool of that day was so much less rich than it is today, so that
>Henderson has stolen his bases against far more skilled and talented if less
>vicious players than did Cobb?
Agreed. Assuming he got the hang of it, his talent may have
made him highly more successful against lesser players. On the
other hand, I don't think that effect would be as marked as
you think. For one, the SB was a crucial weapon and it was
taken seriously by the defense. You can bet that all defenders
were well schooled and practised in the tasks which prevented
stolen bases. For two, my main point that stealing that many
bases would have been hell on the legs. Eventually, that's
going to wear you down. It wore down Cobb. It would wear
down Henderson. Without adequate padding on poorly kept fields,
sliding day after day on that stuff tears up your legs. For
three, players played more. They had to. The rosters were
very small in comparison. While that provides Henderson more
opportunities to get on base and steal, it also wears him
out faster.
>And why the implict assumptions in your
>conclusion that it's ridiculous to think Henderson could steal as many or more
>then than he did now?
Because no one else could last that long! The only person
who beat Cobb under similar conditions was Billy Hamilton, who
benefited 4 seasons where SBs were awarded for going from first
to third, runner tagging up, or moved up on a ground ball to
the right side. Those seasons gave him 343 of his 912 SBs. Even
so, Hamilton was done in 14 seasons. Cobb lasted another decade.
I've taken the time and effort to put the following chart
together. Hopefully, this won't be casually dismissed by you.
You want more argument. Here is more argument:
SBs 20+ 30+ 40+ 50+ 60+ 70+ 80+ 90+ Total
Hamilton* 12 11 10 9 7 6 6 5 912
Cobb 17 12 9 8 6 3 2 1 892
Collins 15 12 10 6 3 1 1 0 744
Carey 15 14 10 6 2 0 0 0 738
Wagner 18 11 8 5 1 0 0 0 722
Davis* 17 11 5 1 1 0 0 0 616
Hoy* 13 11 6 5 2 1 1 0 594
VanHaltren* 14 11 5 3 1 1 0 0 583
Duffy* 11 9 7 4 2 2 1 0 574
Dahlen 14 9 4 2 1 0 0 0 547
Long* 14 7 4 3 2 1 1 0 534
Donovan* 13 9 6 1 0 0 0 0 518
Doyle* 12 9 5 2 2 1 0 0 516
Clark 14 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 506
Keeler 11 6 5 2 2 0 0 0 495
Milan 10 7 5 3 2 2 1 0 495
Sheckard 11 7 2 2 2 1 0 0 465
Delahanty* 12 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 455
Kelly 8 6 4 2 1 1 1 0 443
Magee 10 7 5 1 0 0 0 0 441
McGraw 8 6 5 3 3 2 0 0 436
Speaker 10 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 432
Bescher 8 7 4 4 3 2 1 0 428
Tiernan* 11 7 4 3 0 0 0 0 428
Ryan* 9 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 418
Bush 9 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 404
Chance 9 5 3 2 1 0 0 0 401
*) Played at least one 20+ SB season prior to 1892
rule change.
That's pretty much everyone with at least 400 SBs
who played in the deadball era and before, but didn't
collect all their SBs before 1892. If I forgot someone,
let me know.
The point of this chart is that it dramatically
shows that only Cobb was able to put up seasons of
50, 60, 70 or more SBs after that rule change. The
quality of play got better, and Cobb still reigned
supreme.
Again, coming back to my point of bodily abuse,
if NONE of these great ballplayers were durable
enough to last 12 or more years on the field
stealing 20 or more bases, what in the world makes
you think Rickey Henderson would magically be able
to do it?
>That is, what about this mollycoddling wimp business you
>love so much? Do you really want to maintain that if he needed to be,
>Henderson could not harness his fierce "MoFo from the 'hood" background,
>as some other poster in this thread pointed out, and intimidate the
>bejeezus out of some poor slob farmboy trying to guard second base?
Those poor slob farmboys knew how to fight back! And they
did! And they got away with it!
>I assure you James, I can read pretty well. The thing is, you never give me
>anything to go on. Your whole position boils down to the following:
>
>a) Play was more vicous and circumstances less kind in the deadball era.
>b) Rickey Henderson could not steal as many bases in the deadball era as he
>did in the modern era.
>
>That's all you've given me. I hope you see there's a bit of a missing link in
>your reasoning. There is just assertion, no argument.
I can understand where some of your complaint is coming from.
Even though I consider that I have given you more than a simple
assertion, hopefully some of what I have written above (which
took a great deal of time and effort btw) will give you something
more to go on.
While I'm at it, here's another little chart for you:
Prime AB G TeamG %Team SB SB/G
1980-1990 Henderson 5662 1519 1729 87.9 903 .59
1907-1917 Cobb 5875 1555 1703 91.3 678 .44
Coincedently, both Cobb and Henderson had pretty much
the same peak period for SBs which I like to call "Prime".
In this period, Cobb played 91.3% of his team's games.
Henderson played slighty more games (with less of a
percentage) than Cobb. Henderson in his prime stole
225 more bases than Cobb in his prime.
Now here's the $64,000 question: How well would
Henderson have faired in the deadball era with much
more punishment on his body? I say he steals
considerably less than 903. I think he can beat the
678 the Cobb put up, but eventually Cobb would catch
up to him because he was tough enough to stick it
out for another decade and some change.
At his prime, I have not disputed that Henderson
could outsteal Cobb. However, there are two very
big assumptions one has to make as far as I'm concerned:
1) He learns how to steal bases the deadball way.
2) His body lasts long enough to withstand a decade
or more of deadball-punishment.
However, just to throw out one more line of
argument, I have claimed that stealing bases is
but a small fraction of baserunning savvy. Indeed,
if Cobb played before 1892, I believe his baserunning
skills would even be more pronounced as he would have
been credited with all those extra bases he took as
SBs. As far as I know, no one has bothered to try
to calculate this number. I wish I could. I am sure
it is well over 1200. In that era, I am absolutely
sure you would have seen a descrepancy as large as
Babe Ruth's power descrepancy over everyone post-1920.
Okay. I'm exhausted now myself. Time for some
anesthesia....
James Weisberg
In article <6d25lg$s...@pluto.njcc.com>,
>>that logic. Our entire view of history is based on accounts
>>decades or even centuries old.
>
>No, it isn't. Good history is based on accounts and documents created
>contemporaneously with the events, or as near as possible.
Yeah, well, there are plenty of instances where this isn't
the case, however. That or there are only exist one side of
the story, usually one or two perspectives at most. Much of
our history could be severely wrong or misinterpreted.
>> So I guess nothing but the stats are worthwhile. It doesn't
>>matter that both Casey Stengel and Branch Rickey, two highly
>>respected men who ate baseball for breakfast, lunch, and dinner
>>and saw both men play, couldn't make an adequate assessment of
>>the talents of Ty Cobb and Jackie Robinson 30yrs apart.
>
>Correct. It doesn't matter how much baseball you watch. It doesn't
>matter whether you invented the game of baseball singlehandedly. It
>doesn't matter if you're Richard Feynman, Branch Rickey, Earl Weaver, and
>Albert Einstein all rolled into one.
Gee, I guess I should stop watching baseball then. Evidently
I don't remember how good Barry Bonds is, or how crappy Ozzie
Guillen is.
>This has nothing to do with baseball knowledge or intelligence. Thirty
>year old memories are not accurate.
That's a gross overstatement. Certainly there are accurate
30yr old memories. You are trying to say the amalgam of 30yrs
worth of dust on memories that old on a large scope are not
accurate. Well, yeah, that's probably true in many circumstances.
I don't agree this is one of them.
>The human memory is a lot less
>reliable than you seem to think it is. I can recommend some reading on
>the subject if you're interested. What you'd be comparing is memories of
>three or four stolen bases of Cobb's to three or four of Jackie
>Robinson's. If that many.
Pristine memories maybe. That still doesn't mean that I
wouldn't listen to the opinion of one man who saw dozens
and dozens of games for each player. My memories of Mark
Grace are not pristine. But I think I have an overall
good assessment of his value compared to many other
first baseman. I would trust the same in hearing Branch
Rickey or Casey Stengel or even Cobb himself, who had
a dynamite memory for detail, though he stretched the
facts a bit. These are guys trained in picking out the
idiosyncracies of a ballplayer which make him good.
Other professionals are able to do the same. I can
talk to professors and musicians who clearly remember
events many years ago and pick out what it was that
made such and such memorable/unique.
BTW, if you are not interested in first hand
accounts whatsoever, what else do you base your
decisions on aside from the numbers printed? There
is more to these ballplayers than just that, David.
It may not be quantifiable, but it's also not
useless.
James Weisberg
In article <6d29c1$r...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> wrote:
> While I'm at it, here's another little chart for you:
>
>Prime AB G TeamG %Team SB SB/G
>1980-1990 Henderson 5662 1519 1729 87.9 903 .59
>1907-1917 Cobb 5875 1555 1703 91.3 678 .44
>
> Coincedently, both Cobb and Henderson had pretty much
>the same peak period for SBs which I like to call "Prime".
>In this period, Cobb played 91.3% of his team's games.
>Henderson played slighty more games (with less of a
>percentage) than Cobb. Henderson in his prime stole
>225 more bases than Cobb in his prime.
There's a misstatement above. I meant to say Henderson's
team played slightly more games, with him playing less
of a percentage, than Cobb. Hopefully that didn't cause
much confusion. The chart is clear enough.
David Marc Nieporent
In <6d29c1$r...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:
[big snip]
> I can't establish beyond a doubt that "Henderson would not
>be up to it". But I can establish that NO ONE else was up to
>it! If the toughest players of the day couldn't match Cobb's
>extreme durability/longevity/performance, why would I possibly
>think one of today's players could?
Why wouldn't you? I don't understand this comment. Rickey Henderson
isn't "one of today's players." He's the absolute *best* of today's
players, by a huge amount, at basestealing.
And then you say, along the same lines:
> I established this eons ago. At least you recognize it finally.
>I have tried to show where and how this would affect Henderson.
>In between inane responses about Henderson wouldn't even by allowed
>to play back then, the crux of my argument was that the brutal
>conditions didn't bode very well for would-be basestealers. They
>had a hard task ahead of them. Physically, it is much easier to
>steal 1200 bases today than 1200 bases then.
Then how come no other player has come anywhere close to 1200?
[snip]
> Again, coming back to my point of bodily abuse,
>if NONE of these great ballplayers were durable
>enough to last 12 or more years on the field
>stealing 20 or more bases, what in the world makes
>you think Rickey Henderson would magically be able to do it?
Congrats. You've just proven that Rickey Henderson didn't steal 1200
bases, even in his own era. After all, none of the great ballplayers have
done it, so what in the world makes you think Rickey Henderson would
magically be able to do it?
What makes you think he *wouldn't?* Despite your whining about Jon Avins
not getting your point(*), what it all boils down to is "Ty Cobb is
tougher than Rickey Henderson." You don't really provide anything to
support this claim. As Jon says, your argument is just "Ty Cobb was
really tough, therefore Rickey Henderson couldn't do what he did." Why
can't you comprehend that someone else just *might* be as tough as Cobb?
(*) And once again, James, I feel compelled to point out that when you
start getting annoyed that everyone seems to be misunderstanding you, you
might want to try considering the possibility that it's because you're not
making sense.
Ron Johnson
In article <6cvg1r$k...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> wrote:
>In article <K1HI.2781$N4.17...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
>Thomas R Scudder <tom...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>James Weisberg (chad...@sashimi.wwa.com) asieoniezi:
>>: If there was anyone who was going to steal at such a rate and
>>: still be tough enough to hang around for 1200 steals, it
>>: would have been Cobb, not Henderson.
>>
>>Would not times infinity.
>
> I can't believe people disagree with me on this. I
>understand some of the rebuff I'm facing at the reverse
>end -- that Cobb would have a hard time amassing 1200
>steals today -- but I cannot believe my ears that anyone
>here actually thinks Henderson could have stolen 1200
>bases in the deadball era. That is absolutely ludicrous!
Why?
Henderson's a pretty amazing talent. Lead the league 11 times.
And is still piling them on at a pretty impressive rate.
Cobb only lead 6 times. And Cobb basicly lost his speed
by 1918. We have his base stealing record from 1920 on
and it's clear that he was hurting his team a lot on the
base paths (127-99 in the 20s just doesn't cut it)
--
RNJ
Ron Johnson
In article <6d1es8$l...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980224...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Michael J. Sacks <msa...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> Also, remember, that its really OBP that counts here, not slugging. A high
>>
>>Look at Henderson's and Cobb's OBA and argue about it then
>
>I think one should consider that he has an OBA because of his
>walk totals, not his ability to hit for high average. I'll
>go ahead and make the claim that walk totals as a whole
>were significantly less during the deadball era. I haven't
>done a formal study on that but my quick glance at the
>league totals seems to confirm that. Secondly, the strike
>zone was larger. Henderson would not have benefitted as
>much from his crouched stance.
League averages for Cobb's first 19 years and the NL for Henderson's
career (using the NL to avoid the bother of factoring out the DH.
I'll stipulate that the AL offensive levels would be a bit higher,
though not that much. On the other hand, Henderson played the bulk
of his career in a fairly extreme pitcher's park. I figure it comes
out in the wash)
BA OBP SLG E/G
AL 1905-23 .259 .318 .341 3.3
NL 1979-97 .257 .321 .384 1.6
Surprise. The walk rate wasn't substantially different. No surprise to
anyone who knows about Miller Huggins or Roy Thomas or Jimmy Sheckard.
There were players who walked a ton then.
Translating Henderson's career stats to Cobb's era I get .287/400/.380
instead of his .286/.406/.431 (and that's without adjusting for the
substantially lower level of talent in the AL when Cobb was active)
In other words, he's on first more often.
Further, the error rate was more than twice as high then. And
Henderson would obviously benefit from this.
Exactly where his SB totals would end up is anybody's guess. If he
were to run with the same frequency (and success rate - though I
think it would go up.), he's in the 1300 range. If he were to adopt
the lunatic agression of the teens, his totals would go up, but
his rate would go down.
--
RNJ
Ron Johnson
In article <dbriblet-270...@f209-063.net.wisc.edu>,
Doug Riblet <dbri...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>"Michael J. Sacks" <msa...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>overall to anything in the past, 'cause the dilution of talent is crazy,
>
>When people say this about the 1950s, it's mistaken. Saying this
>about Cobb's era is just plain nutso.
>
>In Cobb's time there were 16 teams drawing on a talent pool consisting
>of all the white players in North America.
Not even.
In Cobb's day, the minors were free. If a minor league team didn't
choose to make a given player available, you couldn't have him.
The west coast teams in particular were not terribly interested
in making anyone available (unless of course the price was right)
I'm absolutely convinced that Gavvy Cravath was a HOF calibre
player. Didn't hit the majors until he was 27 and didn't stick
until he was 31. The teams that owned him wanted him.
And there were plenty of players uninterested in the majors. There
wasn't anything like the salary differences that exist today between
the best players in the minors and anyone in the majors. It would
be common for players to make as much (or even more) in the minors.
--
RNJ
James Buster
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980224...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Jays to school.
I doubt it. Remember, that Tigers team was optimized for dead-ball-era
tactics. Its hitters emphasized OBP and bunting, to play for one run.
In the modern era, teams are more optimized for SLG, to play for the
big inning.
>Ty Cobb would be a different player in this era, but he'd still kick butt.
>Hitting against today's fifth starters would be a piece of cake
>comparatively.
While Cobb may have been great against the pitching of his era, it is
impossible to say whether he could adjust to the modern breaking ball
and pitchers that don't coast through games.
>Adjustments for eras can only be made so far....if today's average ERA
>is around 4+ and it used to be around 3, that tells you something.
Yeah, it tells me that better hitting and worse pitching cannot be
distinguished.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
Michael D. McCullough
David Marc Nieporent wrote
>Congrats. You've just proven that Rickey Henderson didn't steal 1200
>bases, even in his own era. After all, none of the great ballplayers have
>done it, so what in the world makes you think Rickey Henderson would
>magically be able to do it?
>
>What makes you think he *wouldn't?* Despite your whining about Jon Avins
>not getting your point(*), what it all boils down to is "Ty Cobb is
>tougher than Rickey Henderson." You don't really provide anything to
>support this claim. As Jon says, your argument is just "Ty Cobb was
>really tough, therefore Rickey Henderson couldn't do what he did." Why
>can't you comprehend that someone else just *might* be as tough as Cobb?
Sticking up for James (sheepishly), we all know how tough
Cobb was. If we didn't know, then James has surely reminded
us. The $64,000 question, as pointed out, is how tough
Henderson is, and could he adapt to deadball conditions.
First off, I'm not sure at this point who brought up the argument --
as I recall, the argument was that Henderson could out steal Cobb
in the deadball era. If that was it, then it seems to me that the burden
should be on all the Henderson-supporters to show that he *could*
put up with the playing conditions at that time, not on James to refute
that point.
I haven't seen *anything* on that other than the "he's a bad mofo"
quote. How insightful! At least James backs his assertions up
with anecdotal evidence.
Second, even though he doesn't have that burden (as I see it), he
*has* brought up the fact that Henderson has missed more games
than Cobb. (Some of those might have been contract holdouts, but
that's another issue.)
If you guys think "that someone else just *might* be as tough as Cobb,"
back it up! As a fairly neutral third-party, I'm willing to believe that
someone may be as tough as Cobb. I'm not convinced that Henderson
is. You guys have this burden, not James -- prove this to me!
Mike
Paul G. Wenthold
Michael D. McCullough wrote:
>
> David Marc Nieporent wrote
> >Congrats. You've just proven that Rickey Henderson didn't steal 1200
> >bases, even in his own era. After all, none of the great ballplayers have
> >magically be able to do it?
> >
> >not getting your point(*), what it all boils down to is "Ty Cobb is
> >tougher than Rickey Henderson." You don't really provide anything to
> >support this claim. As Jon says, your argument is just "Ty Cobb was
> >really tough, therefore Rickey Henderson couldn't do what he did." Why
> >can't you comprehend that someone else just *might* be as tough as Cobb?
>
> Sticking up for James (sheepishly), we all know how tough
> Cobb was. If we didn't know, then James has surely reminded
> us. The $64,000 question, as pointed out, is how tough
> Henderson is, and could he adapt to deadball conditions.
>
Why is that the question? Why isn't it also "Could Cobb adjust
to the modern conditions?" Maybe Cobb's aggressive style would
get him tossed out of half the games? Shit, Cobb would have an awful
time even making the majors with that split-handed batting grip.
His little league coach would have straightened that out.
If Cobb were trying to adapt to modern conditions, he would not
be the same Ty Cobb that played in the deadball era. And there
is no reason to assume that he would be any better.
James Weisberg
In article <6d34jj$f...@bolivia.earthlink.net>,
Michael D. McCullough <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>First off, I'm not sure at this point who brought up the argument --
>as I recall, the argument was that Henderson could out steal Cobb
>in the deadball era. If that was it, then it seems to me that the burden
>should be on all the Henderson-supporters to show that he *could*
>put up with the playing conditions at that time, not on James to refute
>that point.
>
>I haven't seen *anything* on that other than the "he's a bad mofo"
>quote. How insightful! At least James backs his assertions up
>with anecdotal evidence.
I forget who said that, but it was basically sarcasm, Michael.
The point of it was that I wasn't making a strong argument,
but merely stating Cobb was tough and therefore no one else
could have possibly been as tough. So this statement was a
very concise way of hinting to me that I needed to come back
with something a little more cogent.
I get the hint even though my own posts seem to be
misunderstood.
As I explained, thinking Henderson to be a "bad mofo" and
proving it is almost pointless because it really can't be done.
However, there's not a shadow of a doubt that Cobb was
otherworldly in the tough category. So rather than simply
saying Henderson is a mollycoddled wimp (which I NEVER said)
I have tried to go about showing what exactly Cobb managed
to achieve with his "toughness".
And what he achieved was something only a handful of
basestealers came even close to. Hamilton, Collins, Carey,
Wagner and Davis were relatively close to his base stealing
prowess and longevity. No one else really came close.
That says something significant. It says that the toughest
mofos of that era, the toughest mofos in all of baseball
history, couldn't match Cobb.
Eureka!
And so now where does Henderson fit in? Even if he
was twice as good at stealing bases as Cobb, he'd still
have to be *damn* tough to survive a dozen or more seasons
of prodigious SB output. There were only 3 guys from
1888 or so until 1920 that managed more than a dozen
seasons or 30 or more SBs. That speaks gobs about how
tough it was to steal for any length of time. If you
go back and look at the top base stealers of the day,
every now and then you'll see a Clyde Milan or Don
Bescher with 70 or more steals. None of these guys
lasted very long. Only Billy Hamilton and Eddie
Collins and Ty Cobb managed to combine large SB numbers
with longevity as well. Hamilton's big seasons were
primarily before 1892 however.
>Second, even though he doesn't have that burden (as I see it), he
>*has* brought up the fact that Henderson has missed more games
>than Cobb. (Some of those might have been contract holdouts, but
>that's another issue.)
Cobb had contract holdouts! He would have played even
more games if Navin wasn't such a cheap bastard. I expounded
on this previously. At least Cobb had a real reason. He
was killing himself for the Tigers and every player's
contract stipulated that if you get hurt, the team can
release you from the contract 10 days afterwards. No
insurance. No medical coverage. No nothing. Cobb wanted
*assurances* that he would be taken care of. He wanted
a 3yr deal, something no Tiger ever received. He finally
got the latter, after a couple years of holdouts. But
he always played with the threat looming over his head
that if he hurt himself, that was it! The Tigers weren't
going to help him out.
I wonder how bold Henderson would be under those
circumstances? And that's a very valid question. I
don't even mean to slight Henderson here, but that
was a valid concern of *EVERY* ballplayer back then.
If you got hurt, your career was over. And they didn't
have money to fall back on. That Cobb achieved
financial independence outside of baseball was a
testimony to both his determination and intelligence.
He could have quit at any time after that point. He
kept it up through grueling injuries long afterwards.
>If you guys think "that someone else just *might* be as tough as Cobb,"
>back it up! As a fairly neutral third-party, I'm willing to believe that
>someone may be as tough as Cobb. I'm not convinced that Henderson
>is. You guys have this burden, not James -- prove this to me!
As my personal editorial, I don't believe anyone was
as tough as Cobb. Maybe Pete Reiser. Maybe. I have only
scratched the surface here on that issue Michael. If there
was a superman, it was Cobb. He was unbelievable in that
regard. Unlike anything you have ever seen.
James Weisberg
In article <34F578...@dorothy.chem.ttu.edu>,
Paul G. Wenthold <went...@dorothy.chem.ttu.edu> wrote:
>Michael D. McCullough wrote:
>> Sticking up for James (sheepishly), we all know how tough
>> Cobb was. If we didn't know, then James has surely reminded
>> us. The $64,000 question, as pointed out, is how tough
>> Henderson is, and could he adapt to deadball conditions.
>>
>Why is that the question? Why isn't it also "Could Cobb adjust
>to the modern conditions?" Maybe Cobb's aggressive style would
>get him tossed out of half the games? Shit, Cobb would have an awful
>time even making the majors with that split-handed batting grip.
>His little league coach would have straightened that out.
That was the original question, actually. I started
by saying that under more favorable conditions, Cobb could
have achieved 1200 SBs. Under a 162 game schedule,
fewer distractions, and better conditions, he could have
made up the difference, in my opinion. He still wouldn't
have as great a success rate; and he still would have
had to play many more games and be on base many more
times than Henderson, but he could have eclipsed his
grand total.
>If Cobb were trying to adapt to modern conditions, he would not
>be the same Ty Cobb that played in the deadball era. And there
>is no reason to assume that he would be any better.
I'm not really assuming that actually. I'm assuming
he just doesn't tear himself to shreds. Cobb could have
stolen more than 100 bases in 1915. He cut his pace
considerably at the end of the season because his legs
were a pair of raw bleeding sores and he wanted to
heal them up in case the Tigers made the postseason.
That was common. Here's a guy who had to make at least
one trip to the hospital which laid him up for a couple
weeks because his legs got infected they were so bad.
If this didn't happen, he could have stolen many more
bases. He didn't have to be BETTER; only HEALTHIER!
James Weisberg
In article <6d2leq$h...@pluto.njcc.com>,
>>be up to it". But I can establish that NO ONE else was up to
>>it! If the toughest players of the day couldn't match Cobb's
>>extreme durability/longevity/performance, why would I possibly
>>think one of today's players could?
>
>isn't "one of today's players." He's the absolute *best* of today's
>players, by a huge amount, at basestealing.
But he's no Babe Ruth in the power department. Henderson
has a great number of SBs, but others have stolen nearly as
many bases in a season. The thing about Henderson is that
he as managed to keep it up season after season after
season. And this is *exactly* where I begin my argument.
I have no doubt he has the talent to steal 1200 bases
in any era. I highly doubt he has the longevity to do so.
It would have been a monumental feat. If you looked the
chart, only 3 guys (Hamilton, Cobb, and Collins) managed
3 or more seasons with 60 or more SBs. 3 of Hamilton's
seasons were the direct result of the pre-1892 rule.
That would leave Rickey Henderson needing to do something
Cobb only did 6 times, and NO ONE else from the entire
era did more than 3-4 times! There were some damn good
basestealers back then. But no one had the longevity.
That's the key. Not talent. Longevity.
>And then you say, along the same lines:
>
>> I established this eons ago. At least you recognize it finally.
>>I have tried to show where and how this would affect Henderson.
>>In between inane responses about Henderson wouldn't even by allowed
>>to play back then, the crux of my argument was that the brutal
>>conditions didn't bode very well for would-be basestealers. They
>>had a hard task ahead of them. Physically, it is much easier to
>>steal 1200 bases today than 1200 bases then.
>
>Then how come no other player has come anywhere close to 1200?
LONGEVITY! Or as I said earlier, durability. Season to
season, there were other guys more durable than Cobb. Of
course those guys weren't killing themselves on the basepaths.
Cobb was the most durable overall. He kept coming back for
more 24yrs running.
>> Again, coming back to my point of bodily abuse,
>>if NONE of these great ballplayers were durable
>>enough to last 12 or more years on the field
>>stealing 20 or more bases, what in the world makes
>>you think Rickey Henderson would magically be able to do it?
>
>Congrats. You've just proven that Rickey Henderson didn't steal 1200
>bases, even in his own era. After all, none of the great ballplayers have
>done it, so what in the world makes you think Rickey Henderson would
>magically be able to do it?
I'm glad I spent all that time for you to get this
ridiculous conclusion out of it! The whole point of that
chart was to compare Cobb to the other basestealers of his
era (and slightly before). It had nothing to do with the
modern era. The reason Rickey Henderson can steal 1200
bases today is because he's immensely talented, the
conditions are much better, and he has been relatively
healthy. The immensely talented part he can take with
him to any era. But the conditions and relative health
parts are subject to the era. And as the chart clearly
pointed out, NO ONE survived as long as Cobb on the
basepaths! There were faster runners than Cobb back
then. There were perhaps even better basestealers than
Cobb back then over a short span. None combined the
talent and the longevity.
That ain't no fluke!
>What makes you think he *wouldn't?* Despite your whining about Jon Avins
>not getting your point(*), what it all boils down to is "Ty Cobb is
>tougher than Rickey Henderson." You don't really provide anything to
>support this claim. As Jon says, your argument is just "Ty Cobb was
>really tough, therefore Rickey Henderson couldn't do what he did." Why
>can't you comprehend that someone else just *might* be as tough as Cobb?
Look, I haven't slammed Henderson for not being tough once
in this thread. If you keep infering this then all you do is
get my exasperated. I don't comprehend that someone else just
*might* be as tough as Cobb because no one else, from an era
that churned out the toughest players of all, was as tough. But
that isn't my point! Henderson could be fucking Superman for all
I care and he *still* would have to play under the conditions
of the deadball era. Unless he was completely impervious to
pain and injury, he would have to survive in an era where
players got hurt and had to play hurt! That doesn't help
steal bases.
>(*) And once again, James, I feel compelled to point out that when you
>start getting annoyed that everyone seems to be misunderstanding you, you
>might want to try considering the possibility that it's because you're not
>making sense.
I am making sense. You are not addressing my argument. You
are sniping at it. Why not try addressing a point? You have
YET to acknowledge that playing in the deadball era, from
a physical sense, detracts from stealing bases. You have YET
to acknowledge the possibility that Henderson just might not
be able to last as long. You have YET to write one thing
in appreciation of the fact that Ty Cobb managed to outlast
the toughest opponents of his day and beat them in every
offensive facet of the game. Henderson isn't regarded as
some hulking toughbody. He hasn't even played in today's
modern game as often as Cobb played back then. I think
I have every reason to believe that he wouldn't have
matched Cobb's longevity.
NawrockiT
James Weisberg wrote:
: I'm not really assuming that actually. I'm assuming
: he just doesn't tear himself to shreds. Cobb could have
: stolen more than 100 bases in 1915. He cut his pace
: considerably at the end of the season because his legs
: were a pair of raw bleeding sores and he wanted to
: heal them up in case the Tigers made the postseason.
This isn't the first time you've said this, but with each repetition, it sounds
more and more like old-fogey revisionism to me. I'm sure at some point, Cobb
said he could have stolen 100 bases in 1915 if he hadn't had to rest his legs.
But is it true?
Consider:
* Cobb played 156 games that year. So however bad he was hurting, it wasn't
enough to keep him out of the lineup. Just enough, apparently, to keep him from
stealing bases.
* The Tigers lost the pennant to the Red Sox by 2.5 games. Cobb's
base-stealing, one of his premier weapons, presumably would have helped down
the stretch. You'd think he'd have been more concerned about finishing first
than about what happened once they finished first.
* Cobb never came close to 100 SBs in any other season, topping out at 83. He
seems just like the kind of blowhard who would offer excuses as to why he
didn't reach 100 in the one season he had a shot at it.
Are there any contemporaneous accounts of Cobb's mangled legs keeping him from
stealing? I don't mean a quote from 1931 where Cobb says, "Yeah, I woulda had a
hundred easy back in '15, but I was saving my legs for the postseason" (nice
anachronism, by the way). Or has anyone loked at the box scores and seen
whether he had, say, 93 by September 1 but only tried to steal four more times
the rest of the year?
Tom Nawrocki
James Weisberg
In article <6d3q36$o...@drn.newsguy.com>, <jav...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <6d29c1$r...@miso.wwa.com>, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com says...
>I don't know how to control the line length. I'm in Netscape; if you tell me
>how I'll do it. I tried shrinking the size of the window on the screen but
>suspect it is ridiculous to think this will help, to put it mildly.
I dunno exactly. Anyone posting an article should try to keep
the line lengths underneath 80 chars as many terminals do not
display more than that without linewrap.
Perhaps making the screen smaller will help actually. That
or using a larger font. It depends on where the hard returns
are entered. Are you typing newline characters or is your
editor/word processor in Netscape taking care of that for you?
If the latter, then try formatting the lines yourself with
explicitely typing a newline after each line. I assume that
when you read this article, there is a line break HERE.
The same should be true if you enter the newlines yourself.
It might be true if you shorten the width of your screen to
80 chars. If you use a fixed-length font, that should be easy.
I don't want to sound like I'm complaining/whining, but it's
standard USENET policy to watch your line lengths. I try to
keep mine under 75 cols to allow for subsequent attribution
ticks. Otherwise, it's tedious to reformat someone else's
post. If a post is too messy for me to read/deal with, I
simply ignore it, unless I have good reason to think it is
highly worthwhile to go through the trouble.
Nick Flynn
On 25 Feb 1998 09:54:48 -0600, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James
Weisberg) wrote:
[snip]
>No one here seems to
>want to admit that Henderson would be a walking scar
>with a propensity to steal that much. It's not as if
>deadball players would stand idly by and let him take
>base after base without doing something about it. They
>play rough, you see. Nothing like what you are used to
>watching today.
>
I've watched this thread go around for a while and I have a comment on
it. Have you ever noticed anything about Rickey Henderson's demeanor
or personality that would you to believe that he would be intimidated
by anyone? RH is one bad-assed dude! That has always been clear to
anyone who wanted to see it. And if you think some turn of the
century crackers playing baseball for shit money would intimidate this
guy, or make him less effective by taking cheap shots - you are nuts.
I think it is far more likely Rickey might shorten the careers of some
other ballplayers.
RH isn't a total psycho like Ty Cobb but I doubt he would be pushed
around or intimidated.
- Nick
James Weisberg
In article <34f5b26a....@news.usaor.net>,
Nick Flynn <fl...@mantech-wva.com> wrote:
>I've watched this thread go around for a while and I have a comment on
>it. Have you ever noticed anything about Rickey Henderson's demeanor
>or personality that would you to believe that he would be intimidated
>by anyone? RH is one bad-assed dude! That has always been clear to
>anyone who wanted to see it. And if you think some turn of the
>century crackers playing baseball for shit money would intimidate this
>guy, or make him less effective by taking cheap shots - you are nuts.
>I think it is far more likely Rickey might shorten the careers of some
>other ballplayers.
>
>RH isn't a total psycho like Ty Cobb but I doubt he would be pushed
>around or intimidated.
You act as if Cobb was playing against midgets or something.
It was intimidating, no matter who you were. And this still
doesn't matter. I'm not using this as a crutch to support my
argument because I don't need it. Whether or not Rickey
Henderson would be intimidated is of no consequence. What
I can gaurentee is that Rickey Henderson would be beaned
more often, spiked more often, in fights more often, injured
more often, and generally in pain more often. These things
don't help in the SB category.
Michael David Jones
"Michael D. McCullough" <m...@earthlink.net> writes:
>David Marc Nieporent wrote
>Sticking up for James (sheepishly), we all know how tough
>Cobb was. If we didn't know, then James has surely reminded
>us. The $64,000 question, as pointed out, is how tough
>Henderson is, and could he adapt to deadball conditions.
>as I recall, the argument was that Henderson could out steal Cobb
>in the deadball era. If that was it, then it seems to me that the burden
>should be on all the Henderson-supporters to show that he *could*
>put up with the playing conditions at that time, not on James to refute
>that point.
I think it was more an assertion that Henderson couldn't have stolen
more than Cobb. Either way, we should look at both sides of the
question.
>I haven't seen *anything* on that other than the "he's a bad mofo"
>quote. How insightful! At least James backs his assertions up
>with anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotal evidence often dressed up in the most dramatic way to be
favorable to Cobb. No mention of any amount of time Henderson played
hurt.
>Second, even though he doesn't have that burden (as I see it), he
>*has* brought up the fact that Henderson has missed more games
>than Cobb. (Some of those might have been contract holdouts, but
>that's another issue.)
OK, so Henderson missed more games than Cobb. That's a fact. It's also
pretty boring in this context. Why was that so? Was it because he was
hurt, or because of different usage patterns of players in today's
game? James certainly would have us believe that it's all attributable
to Cobb's superior durability, but is that so? He would have us ignore
the fact that Cobb, who was undoubtedly a great player, played against
a reduced level of competition because he didn't have to play against
black players. He would also have us believe that while Cobb was tough
enough to "revolutionize basestealing", Henderson wouldn't have been
able to get away with his style of basestealing. If there was even
anecdotal evidence given for this claim, I haven't seen it.
Beyond that, there's a question of perspective: Henderson didn't
break Cobb's record. Brock broke Cobb's record, and Henderson broke
*that*. And he didn't just better Cobb's total by 67 steals. Henderson
could lose *30%* of his stolen base total and he'd still be in a
position to pass Cobb this year. We're not talking about Vince Coleman
here, we're talking about someone who is head and shoulders above
anyone else in the post-WWII game when it comes to base stealing.
Someone who has been durable enough in the modern game to average over
60 SB/year for 19 years including strike years.
>If you guys think "that someone else just *might* be as tough as Cobb,"
>back it up! As a fairly neutral third-party, I'm willing to believe that
>someone may be as tough as Cobb. I'm not convinced that Henderson
>is. You guys have this burden, not James -- prove this to me!
See previous paragraph. And don't mistake this: Henderson has clearly
been significantly more effective at basestealing than Cobb. Even if
he's not *as* tough as Cobb, is he enough "less tough" to make up the
difference?
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.
- Adlai Stevenson
James Weisberg
In article <19980226172...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
NawrockiT <nawr...@aol.com> wrote:
>James Weisberg wrote:
>: I'm not really assuming that actually. I'm assuming
>: he just doesn't tear himself to shreds. Cobb could have
>: stolen more than 100 bases in 1915. He cut his pace
>: considerably at the end of the season because his legs
>: were a pair of raw bleeding sores and he wanted to
>: heal them up in case the Tigers made the postseason.
>
>This isn't the first time you've said this, but with each repetition, it sounds
>more and more like old-fogey revisionism to me. I'm sure at some point, Cobb
>said he could have stolen 100 bases in 1915 if he hadn't had to rest his legs.
>But is it true?
That he could have stolen 100? Sure. He stole 96. It's not as
if he was very far off.
>Consider:
>
>* Cobb played 156 games that year. So however bad he was hurting, it wasn't
>enough to keep him out of the lineup. Just enough, apparently, to keep him from
>stealing bases.
Right. He stayed in the lineup because the Tigers were in
contention all season. The Red Sox clinched the pennant on
Sept 27th on the day Cobb stole two bases. I believe those
were his 91st and 92nd. So he got 4 more from the 28th to
the 3rd.
>* The Tigers lost the pennant to the Red Sox by 2.5 games. Cobb's
>base-stealing, one of his premier weapons, presumably would have helped down
>the stretch. You'd think he'd have been more concerned about finishing first
>than about what happened once they finished first.
Certainly. But by that time his legs were raw. In order
to stay in the lineup, he had to curtail his basestealing.
He was still hitting the ball better than anyone.
>* Cobb never came close to 100 SBs in any other season, topping out at 83. He
>seems just like the kind of blowhard who would offer excuses as to why he
>didn't reach 100 in the one season he had a shot at it.
Ty Cobb stole his 90th base on Sept 20 of 1915 to break
what was thought to be Clyde Milan's record of 89. It was
really 88. Certainly he was gunning for that mark.
As for offering excuses, that seems doubtful. He could
have tacked on 4 more SBs in that two weeks if he ran on
every occasion. In Cobb's own words (1960):
"I've always regretted I didn't go for a hundred or
more steals, but in that month I was saving my sore legs...
in case we went to the World Series."
>Are there any contemporaneous accounts of Cobb's mangled legs keeping him from
>stealing? I don't mean a quote from 1931 where Cobb says, "Yeah, I woulda had a
>hundred easy back in '15, but I was saving my legs for the postseason" (nice
>anachronism, by the way). Or has anyone loked at the box scores and seen
>whether he had, say, 93 by September 1 but only tried to steal four more times
>the rest of the year?
I don't have the records from the beginning of September. I know
where he was at on Sept 20th as I posted above. Cobb didn't really
have to brag or make excuses here, however. His legs were mangled
whether you care to believe that or not. Every source on the matter
will tell you that. I can only post what I know has been stated.
I have no reason to doubt Cobb could have made the 100 if he was
gunning for that. I'm not sure this really matters anyway. All
we're talking about is 4 measely SBs. Overall, if he wasn't getting
so torn up on the field, he could have stolen more bases. The
games he sat out were primarily due to his legs being messed
up for one reason or another. He overcame most everything else.
Michael David Jones
chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James Weisberg) writes:
> As I explained, thinking Henderson to be a "bad mofo" and
>proving it is almost pointless because it really can't be done.
>However, there's not a shadow of a doubt that Cobb was
>otherworldly in the tough category. So rather than simply
>saying Henderson is a mollycoddled wimp (which I NEVER said)
>I have tried to go about showing what exactly Cobb managed
>to achieve with his "toughness".
Why can't proving Henderson's toughness be done? Hasn't he played
through a lot of small injuries? Didn't he make it out of a pretty
tough place to grow up? All of the evidence for Cobb is anecdotal,
after all, and came from a time when having that image was something
to be cultivated.
> And what he achieved was something only a handful of
>basestealers came even close to. Hamilton, Collins, Carey,
>Wagner and Davis were relatively close to his base stealing
>prowess and longevity. No one else really came close.
>That says something significant. It says that the toughest
>mofos of that era, the toughest mofos in all of baseball
>history, couldn't match Cobb.
Again, bald assertion. Why were those guys the toughest? Why not the
guys who broke the color line? Why not the guys who took time off to
fight WWII? Why not today's players? Why? When you start with this big
an assumption, you can "prove" pretty much anything you want?
And if you look at Cobb's totals compared to his contemporaries,
they're closer to him than Henderson's contemporaries are to him.
> And so now where does Henderson fit in? Even if he
>was twice as good at stealing bases as Cobb, he'd still
>have to be *damn* tough to survive a dozen or more seasons
>of prodigious SB output. There were only 3 guys from
>1888 or so until 1920 that managed more than a dozen
>seasons or 30 or more SBs. That speaks gobs about how
>tough it was to steal for any length of time. If you
>go back and look at the top base stealers of the day,
>every now and then you'll see a Clyde Milan or Don
>Bescher with 70 or more steals. None of these guys
>lasted very long. Only Billy Hamilton and Eddie
>Collins and Ty Cobb managed to combine large SB numbers
>with longevity as well. Hamilton's big seasons were
>primarily before 1892 however.
And every once in a while today you see a Vince Coleman who pops up on
the single season lists, but not for long. Henderson goes on and on,
just like Cobb did.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
...one can build a mind from many little parts, each mindless by
itself.
- Marvin Minsky
Paul G. Wenthold
James Weisberg wrote:
>
> In article <6d3q36$o...@drn.newsguy.com>, <jav...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >In article <6d29c1$r...@miso.wwa.com>, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com says...
> >I don't know how to control the line length. I'm in Netscape; if you tell me
> >how I'll do it. I tried shrinking the size of the window on the screen but
> >suspect it is ridiculous to think this will help, to put it mildly.
>
> I dunno exactly. Anyone posting an article should try to keep
> the line lengths underneath 80 chars as many terminals do not
> display more than that without linewrap.
My suggestion, Jon, is to use the carriage return. Netscape has a
word-wrap
in the viewer, but it only formats on your viewing (it doesn't even
wrap other people's text).
Hit return.
Terri Torrez
James Weisberg wrote:
[snip]
> But he's no Babe Ruth in the power department. Henderson
> has a great number of SBs, but others have stolen nearly as
> many bases in a season. The thing about Henderson is that
> he as managed to keep it up season after season after
> season.
See, here's where your argument plays favorites. When Cobb is the first
person to accomplish something, he gets a little plus in your book for
being tough, or gritty, or whatever it is that he is to you.
When Henderson becomes the first person to consistently steal a high
number of bases at a high rate of success, you somehow imply that it's a
fluke or something that couldn't possibly have been duplicated earlier.
Why does Cobb's groundbreaking achievement count while Rickey's does
not?
> And this is *exactly* where I begin my argument.
> I have no doubt he has the talent to steal 1200 bases
> in any era. I highly doubt he has the longevity to do so.
> It would have been a monumental feat. If you looked the
> chart, only 3 guys (Hamilton, Cobb, and Collins) managed
> 3 or more seasons with 60 or more SBs.
Doesn't this make Rickey's achievement all the more amazing? Why
insinuate that "since nobody else did this, Rickey clearly couldn't
either?"
Isn't that the *definition* of someone who's the Greatest of All Time --
namely, that they can accomplish something that no one else can?
> 3 of Hamilton's
> seasons were the direct result of the pre-1892 rule.
> That would leave Rickey Henderson needing to do something
> Cobb only did 6 times, and NO ONE else from the entire
> era did more than 3-4 times! There were some damn good
> basestealers back then. But no one had the longevity.
Or, as an alternative explanation, none of them had as much talent as
Rickey.
I can think of a lot of reasons why ballplayers who steal a bunch of
bases one year might not steal as many the next. Maybe he got old. Or
his baserunning skills declined. Or his manager stopped running him
quite so much. Or he got hurt. Or he didn't get on base as much. Or
catchers and pitchers began keeping more careful track of him. Or
whatever.
There are a lot of reasons why very few people put up consistently high
steal totals from year to year; a lack of toughness is just *one* of a
multiplicity of factors, and, IMO, probably isn't anywhere near the
biggest one.
Take Brady Anderson. He's about the toughest, bad-assest player you'll
find in MLB. He stole 53 bases in 1992, with a previous high of 16 and
a subsquent high of 31. Is the *only* explanation for his failure to
post consistent 50+ steal seasons that he somehow isn't "tough" or isn't
"longevitious" enough?
Isn't it at least *possible* that Anderson simply doesn't have the
basestealing talent to rack up big numbers year in and year out, while
Henderson is?
> That's the key. Not talent. Longevity.
Only by your fiat.
[big snip]
> Look, I haven't slammed Henderson for not being tough once
> in this thread.
Sure you have. If Henderson were as tough as Cobb (in your eyes), then
this thread wouldn't exist. You can call it "longevity" if you like,
but it basically just boils down to "Cobb was really tough and lasted a
long time despite beating his body up on the basepaths and (by
implication) Rickey is *not that tough* and would burn out long before
he could get to 1200 steals."
Without that implication, there's no argument. If Rickey is as tough as
Cobb, then he could waltz on back to the deadball era and put up
consistently high steal totals. Since that's the proposition you're
determined to defeat, there's an inherent criticism of Henderson.
NawrockiT
James Weisberg wrote:
Appreciate the research help, James. Allow me to do a little rearranging:
: Ty Cobb stole his 90th base on Sept 20 of 1915 to break
: what was thought to be Clyde Milan's record of 89. It was
: really 88. Certainly he was gunning for that mark.
So if he was gunning for Milan's record, then before 9/20, he was still
stealing as many bases as possible, right? The mangled-leg theory, then,
doesn't come into play until after this game.
: The Red Sox clinched the pennant on
: Sept 27th on the day Cobb stole two bases. I believe those
: were his 91st and 92nd. So he got 4 more from the 28th to
: the 3rd.
Without the benefit of ESPN, Cobb of course wouldn't know that the Sox had
clinched, so this game has to count as happening before the Tigers were
eliminated. So we have six days' worth of games, from 9/22 (9/21 was a Sunday)
to 9/27, when Cobb was supposedly saving his legs, and he stole two bases then
anyway.
The contention, then, is that Cobb took less than a week off from stealing in
which he could have easily stolen four bases. That's plausible, but not
probable: If the Tigers played six games in those six days, Cobb would still
have had to be stealing at an above-average rate than he did the rest of the
season, which was .64 steals per game. (I'd sure like to know how many times he
was on base during the period.)
But the kicker is, he still stole two bases before he knew the Tigers were
eliminated. Why? If he had decided not to run, then why did he steal those two
bases on 9/27?
: As for offering excuses, that seems doubtful. He could
: have tacked on 4 more SBs in that two weeks if he ran on
: every occasion.
What two weeks? He was clearly running a lot before 9/20, and clearly started
running again on 9/27 and thereafter.
: In Cobb's own words (1960):
: "I've always regretted I didn't go for a hundred or
: more steals, but in that month I was saving my sore legs...
: in case we went to the World Series."
Giving Cobb the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he might be remembering a minor
injury that curtailed his running for a week in the early fall of 1915. Then
again, this is 45 years later, and Cobb is a legendarily bitter and crusty old
man.
The evidence does not support James' assertion that Cobb could easily have
gotten 100 steals but for his saving his legs. At most, there was a week when
Cobb didn't run, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Tigers'
being in pennant contention.
Tom Nawrocki
Michael J. Sacks
Is Brady Anderson the only person ever to hit 50 homeruns and steal 50
bases in his career? That's a pretty interesting stat. How about he's
the only person to be in the 20/50 and 50/20 club? Correct?
I think it's interesting,
Mike Sacks
James Weisberg
In article <19980226214...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>
>: "I've always regretted I didn't go for a hundred or
>: more steals, but in that month I was saving my sore legs...
>: in case we went to the World Series."
>
>Giving Cobb the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he might be remembering a minor
>injury that curtailed his running for a week in the early fall of 1915. Then
>again, this is 45 years later, and Cobb is a legendarily bitter and crusty old
>man.
>
>The evidence does not support James' assertion that Cobb could easily have
>gotten 100 steals but for his saving his legs. At most, there was a week when
>Cobb didn't run, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Tigers'
>being in pennant contention.
I actually agree with you, Tom. The evidence I presented doesn't
support the assertion. I didn't really plan on supporting it more
than mentioning that Cobb said this. I didn't think it was that
relevant to my argument either. However, that still doesn't mean
it was wrong. We would have to know what Cobb did from Sept 1st-19th.
All I have is the 20th-3rd, where he only stole 6 more bases in that
stretch. Charles Alexander suggest that he stayed in the lineup
that last week to pad his totals. That's probably true, but he
didn't do much padding. It is interesting to note, however, that
he did steal bases in the time period to begin with. I know he
also got thrown out at least once. That suggests that his legs
*at that point* were capable of stealing at a sustained rate.
If they were too bad, you would figure he would have sat out that
final week. Thus, perhaps he DID severely curtail his SBs prior
to Sept 20th so that they were managable the last week of the
season (assuming the Tigers would have been contenders).
It makes some sense anyway in conjunction with his quote. I
won't know for sure without the records, obviously.