Most hated guy in Sports?

[DavidSomerset]

Quote:

---

He'd hit around .500 with about 80-90 homeruns, 175-200 RBI and steal about 120 bases a year. And oh yeah, still win the gold glove.

---

Quote:

---

Classic. Sometimes idiocy speaks well enough on its own to require no further comment.

---

[Vol4ever]

Quote:

---

Unlike some, he's never failed a drug test. It's rumor.

Yet this guy stays the most hated player. Even before Steroids was a thought... he was hated.

Pete Rose was caught betting on games. Recently admitted to betting on his team and lying all these years and Rose is not hated as much as Barry... In fact, many people love Rose.

I've got a new list coming out.

---

Ask Hank Aaron what he thinks about Barry and the record!!!

[Diesel]

Come on man.

The games greatest hitters were Ted Williams followed by Tony Gwynn...

To say that Ty Cobb was the greatest is somebody who ignores History and the eras.

Players today are much better than they were in Cobb's day. Pitchers pitch much better today than they did in Cobb's day. Feilder's filed today Much better than they did in Cobb's day.

Cobb played in a day when most of the players had no fitness to them. To say that he was great because he was good then is the only idiocy on this board.

Put Barry Bonds back in Cobb's day with the lack of fitness and the lack of pitching skills and Barry Bonds would have dominated the game the way no player dominated the game.

[Sothron]

Quote:

---

Come on man.

The games greatest hitters were Ted Williams followed by Tony Gwynn...

To say that Ty Cobb was the greatest is somebody who ignores History and the eras.

Players today are much better than they were in Cobb's day. Pitchers pitch much better today than they did in Cobb's day. Feilder's filed today Much better than they did in Cobb's day.

Cobb played in a day when most of the players had no fitness to them. To say that he was great because he was good then is the only idiocy on this board.

Put Barry Bonds back in Cobb's day with the lack of fitness and the lack of pitching skills and Barry Bonds would have dominated the game the way no player dominated the game.

---

This should settle this and show just how idiotic your posts are about this.

After enduring several years of seeing his fame and notoriety usurped by Ruth, Cobb decided that he was going to show that swinging for the fences was no challenge for a top hitter. On May 5, 1925, Cobb began a two-game hitting spree better than any even Ruth had unleashed. He was sitting in the dugout talking to a reporter and told him that, for the first time in his career, he was going to swing for the fences. That day, Cobb went 6 for 6, with two singles, a double, and three home runs.[59] His 16 total bases set a new AL record.[59] The next day he had three more hits, two of which were home runs.[59] His single his first time up gave him 9 consecutive hits over three games.[59] His five homers in two games tied the record set by Cap Anson of the old Chicago NL team in 1884.[59] Cobb wanted to show that he could hit home runs when he wanted, but simply chose not to do so. At the end of the series, 38-year-old Cobb had gone 12 for 19 with 29 total bases, and then went happily back to bunting and hitting-and-running/

I realize that I, as someone with two degrees in history, can appreciate historical eras in a sport much more than your common internet poster but even this should that Cobb had he wanted to would have put up power numbers that NO ONE in the game would have even come close to touching. Not even steroid freaks like Bonds.

[Sothron]

I just have to add the man hit five homeruns in two days at THIRTY EIGHT. WELL before any steroids were around. If he could produce those power numbers at THIRTY EIGHT I can't even IMAGINE what he could have done had he been in an era where "swinging for the fences" was acceptable.

[Diesel]

Look at the head in this picture!!!

Karl Malone must be juicing!!

[Sothron]

As for his batting average, well....

Cobb ended his career with 23 consecutive seasons batting .300 or better (the only season under .300 being his rookie season), a Major League record not likely to be broken.

Just take a second to carefully read that. And to tell me he wouldn't hit .200 in this watered down juiced ball era is just laughable.

[Diesel]

UNlike you, I'm actually recognizing History...

What you're telling me is equivalent to saying that a commodore 64 is better than any computer today because it could do Sprite graphics and you could run great programs. Much better programs than any programs of that day.

What I am tell you is I understand how Ty Cobb stacked up against the competition of that day. However, that does not mean that he would stack up against the competition of TODAY... In all of your attempts to explain the greatest of Ty Cobb back in 1920, what you fail to realize is that the game has CHANGED since 1920. Pitchers are much more advanced. Fielders are much faster and much better with their gloves. What it all equals to is that in todays game, you won't be able to sit at the bar all night long, come in and hit a homerun or even three triples and a double because the pitchers do not throw fat pitches, the balls are not as heavy as they used to be, there's going to be much more speed and movement on the ball and what Ty Cobb could do is going to be minimalized.

You can argue all you want of how great he was, and I will agree, in his time he was a good player... BUT comparing him to players of today is like saying that John Havlicek could match up to Jordan. It's a joke!!!

[bfwolf]

No offense, Sothron, but that is a weak argument. Either he put up the numbers or he didn't put up the numbers. 2 games of HR glory do not prove that Cobb could've been a home run hitter had he wanted to. Why would anybody choose to hit singles if they really could hit home runs consistently? Everybody knows that a guy who puts up power numbers like Mike Schmidt is a more valuable hitter than a guy with a great average like Tony Gwynn.

I will say that you can only compare a player to his contemporaries. To judge Ty Cobb by saying that his contemporaries stunk is a terrible argument. If you put Bonds back in Ty Cobb's time, he wouldn't have known anything about fitness etc and as such would be much less of a hitter. But he would've been facing guys who didn't know anything about fitness etc so it evens out.

[bfwolf]

Malone's head looks pretty much the same size to me.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Tony Delk scored 50 points in a game once. Maybe he could've been a 30 ppg scorer if he wanted to. Shoot, put Salim back in time, and maybe he averages 25 ppg and runs circles around Bob Cousy.

Seriously though . .

Diesel, it is kind of unfair to say that Cobb couldn't do now, what he did back then, because the athletes are better now.

If that's the case, how good would Kevin Garnett be back in 1965, if he had the same skill set that he had now? Or is it more likely that KG would've never tried to be a 7 foot SF back in those days?

If you're going to say that Cobb couldn't do what he did back then, you also have to assume that Cobb wouldn't be undergoing the same type of workout, practice, and training regiments that these athletes do now.

So Soth is right about putting Bonds back in time. LOL . . no flaxseed oil for him back in those days. And I'm sure he wouldn't be a workout demon.

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

...What it all equals to is that in todays game, you won't be able to sit at the bar all night long, come in and hit a homerun or even three triples and a double...

---

Mickey Mantle did precisely that against some pretty good pitchers not THAT long ago..

[Sothron]

Again I point out my two history degrees as proof of what I said earlier.

The era Cobb grew up in and played in was the "Dead ball" era where the hitters were coached and taught to "hit it where they ain't" and to try and locate singles in order to get as many runners on base. It was considered unprofessional and selfish for a player to not want to help his team by getting base hits and getting on base as opposed to swinging for the fences and having a much lower chance of getting on base.

Cobb was an absolute purist for that era of baseball and he never changed. He made that wager with a reporter to specifically show that he could have easily done what Ruth was doing (hitting for power) but a PURE hitter was more concerned with getting base hits and getting on base for his TEAM.

That concept has sadly died. However it is incredibly naive to think that if Cobb played in an era where people DID "swing for the fences" he could not do it. The man at THIRTY EIGHT took a weekend series to show his power and he hit five homeruns in two games just to show he could do it. Imagine him doing that over his entire career. Its unreal how many home runs he could have hit had he played that way.

And FYI Diesel: Sporting News lists Cobb as #3 in their Top 100 Baseball Players of All Time.

[bfwolf]

I have a history degree as well. So what? Let's put away our penises and talk about the facts at hand.

What Ty Cobb could have done is irrelevant. What Ty Cobb did over a 2 game series is irrelevant. If Ty Cobb had hit 50 home runs one year, then I would say yes, Ty Cobb could've been a power hitter if he'd wanted to. But he didn't, so our only reasonable recourse is to use the stats at hand.

Ty Cobb was a great player, one of the absolute greatest ever. But to put him above Babe Ruth is astonishing to me. Babe Ruth was one of the best pitchers in baseball and then became absolutely the greatest hitter in baseball history. In 1921, when he hit 59 home runs, the next best guy hit 24 home runs. That's dominance.

[Diesel]

Come on Dude... IF you have 2 history degrees you should realize that you ahve to take into consideration the eras.

You said that it was the deadball era...

OK

That means that ball was softer and even though History loves to think about the effect on Hitters, think about the effect on pitchers... There was no movement on a softball. The speed was less too.

You're living in the 20's... Like I said Havlicek vs. Jordan...

The game has changed a lot.

The rules on Choking up, pine tar, and bat heaviness have changed.

Pitching has changed.

Do you not consider any of this??

I guess that's the problem... As a Historian, Science is not relevant to you or at least not until somebody tells you it's relevant!!! As a Historian, you cannot live in modern day, you can only live in the past and go by what's already been done. You probably believe that the Union Army could handle the current day US Forces? Because you don't give a damn about how technology has changed...

Let me show you something:

Quote:

---

And FYI Diesel: Sporting News lists Cobb as #3 in their Top 100 Baseball Players of All Time.

---

So anytime writers get together and say that their opinion is the correct one, you follow it? You're such a Historian... Try this. Think for yourself....

Do you really think that Ty Cobb would be such a great player today? With better pitchers, better fielders, and different rules to the game??

[AHF]

Quote:

---

I have a history degree as well. So what? Let's put away our penises and talk about the facts at hand.

What Ty Cobb could have done is irrelevant. What Ty Cobb did over a 2 game series is irrelevant. If Ty Cobb had hit 50 home runs one year, then I would say yes, Ty Cobb could've been a power hitter if he'd wanted to. But he didn't, so our only reasonable recourse is to use the stats at hand.

Ty Cobb was a great player, one of the absolute greatest ever. But to put him above Babe Ruth is astonishing to me. Babe Ruth was one of the best pitchers in baseball and then became absolutely the greatest hitter in baseball history. In 1921, when he hit 59 home runs, the next best guy hit 24 home runs. That's dominance.

---

That is pretty much my opinion on this as well.

[Sothron]

There are WORSE pitchers, WORSE fielders and WORSE hitters today as opposed to Cobb's era. The entire concept of how you play the game has changed. I thought I explained that earlier but I'll repeat myself for your benefit.

The entire approach to hitting in Cobb's era was to get a base hit ie a single and just get on base. No one swung for the fences. You were taught to not get under the ball you were taught to direct the ball to the opposite field or to where a gap in the defense was at. "Hit them where they ain't" = hit the ball to a gap in the defense. No one hit for power because the chances are you are just going to make a pop fly that doesn't advance runners OR you will strike out trying to muscle up for that extra power.

This is part of why Cobb hated Ruth. Ruth just swung away for the fences, which in Cobb's era was considered extremely selfish and unprofessional. No one did it. Do you seriously think no one could hit home runs until Babe Ruth came along?? That NO ONE could hit home runs?? Please!

The game changed when Ruth hit so many that more and more people came to see games. THEN the owners started to want their players to do the same for a more "pleasing, fan friendly product." The old warhorses like Cobb who were extremely traditionalists refused to do it. They preferred the "pure hitting" era and they refused to swing for the fences.

The example I showed you is the one time Cobb actually let himself "swing for the fences" because idiot fans *cough* and media people believed he couldn't hit them instead of realizing he and many others simply refused to do it. So Cobb at THIRTY EIGHT clobbered five home runs in TWO GAMES to show he can do it. Ruth never did that and I don't know if anyone has ever done that. He did it simply to show a reporter he could and as the article I posted earlier said...once he proved he could Cobb simply went BACK to only hitting for CONTACT and NOT power.

And btw Heavy D if you doubt I have two history degrees send a PM or email to Jaywalker to verify.

If you took the pure athlete Cobb was and let him grow up in today's baseball culture there is ZERO question in my mind he would do things that would be video game insanely good. In a WEAKER era of WORSE pitching and WORSE fielders he'd have a field day. Juiced balls versus dead balls? Please!

What's funny to me is that every serious baseball writer and historian I know, including George Will, believes that if Cobb (and some of the other old timer legends) were in today's game they would annihilate the record books.

[Sothron]

And for those thinking Ruth was a better hitter:

A personal achievement came in February 1936, when the first Hall of Fame election results were announced. Cobb had been named on 222 of 226 ballots, outdistancing Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson, the only others to earn the necessary 75% of votes to be elected in that first year.

Cobb was considered by sports writers that had watched all of their careers to be THE BEST player in baseball history. He was the first player voted into the Hall of Fame OVER even Ruth.

[bfwolf]

Is your argument that Ty Cobb could've replicated that 2 game series over 162 games? That he could get 9 hits in a row whenever he wanted to?

2 games is meaningless. Ty Cobb may have believed that hitting for average is more important than hitting for power. Ty Cobb would be wrong. I'm not going to reward Ty Cobb in the annals of history for being wrong about how to add the most value to a baseball team. He was what he was. Babe Ruth, by the way, was no slouch of a BA/OBP guy himself.

Also, as any good historian knows, you should cite your sources. What book did you pull that excerpt from? What primary source data do we have to show that Cobb was looking to prove to people what he could do if he wanted to hit for power.

[bfwolf]

Which means what exactly? We already know that sportswriters are idiots. Anybody that wouldn't vote for Ty Cobb OR Babe Ruth on the first ballot is a total moron. Why should we invest any meaning in the vote of a total moron?