Looking at offense only (dont take Ruth's pitching into account) who was the better offensive player in your opinion?
One of the main arguments people say for Ruth is that he was the greatest power hitter of all time. And the best hitter of all time. And that Cobb wasn't a power hitter, so he wasn't nearly as good. But Cobb was a great power hitter, he led the league in slugging 8 times and 6 times in a row from 1907 to 1912. He led the league in OPS+ 12 times in a year 13 year span. He even led the league in homeruns one time. And he did this all in the dead ball era. Where as Ruth did most of his damange with a harder baseball, a cleaner (whiter) baseball, no spit balls, and a nice 294 foot porch at Yankee Stadium.
And Cobb could clear the fences if he really wanted to. He was angry at the publicity Ruth was getting and the whole homerun movement, he was a fan of the 'true' style of baseball that he played. But one day he told a reporter he was swinging for the fences, and he hit 5 homeruns in the next 2 games. He did have power.
But the biggest area that seperates the two in my opinion is base stealing. Cobb stole 900 bases and Ruth stole 127 (with a 50% success rate). Numerous times in his career, Cobb singled, then stole 2nd 3rd and home.
I think Cobb was a more versatile offensive weapon, he could beat you in any way. With his legs, his power, and he rarely struck out (1200 walks, 680 K's, .513 SLG%) he was just impossible to beat.
And when you factor in that it was the deadball era, Cobb was basically the Ruth of his time - the leagues premier power hitter. And he had speed.
Ruth's ability to hit for power is defenitely just as outstanding, not to discredit it. In many ways it's similar to the MVP debate this year, would you rather have the big homerun hitter or the guy who can beat you in a variety of ways offensively?
I've always looked over the numbers and thought that I would rather have Cobb's versatility. But many disagree. Curious to hear your thoughts.
One of the main arguments people say for Ruth is that he was the greatest power hitter of all time. And the best hitter of all time. And that Cobb wasn't a power hitter, so he wasn't nearly as good. But Cobb was a great power hitter, he led the league in slugging 8 times and 6 times in a row from 1907 to 1912. He led the league in OPS+ 12 times in a year 13 year span. He even led the league in homeruns one time. And he did this all in the dead ball era. Where as Ruth did most of his damange with a harder baseball, a cleaner (whiter) baseball, no spit balls, and a nice 294 foot porch at Yankee Stadium.
And Cobb could clear the fences if he really wanted to. He was angry at the publicity Ruth was getting and the whole homerun movement, he was a fan of the 'true' style of baseball that he played. But one day he told a reporter he was swinging for the fences, and he hit 5 homeruns in the next 2 games. He did have power.
But the biggest area that seperates the two in my opinion is base stealing. Cobb stole 900 bases and Ruth stole 127 (with a 50% success rate). Numerous times in his career, Cobb singled, then stole 2nd 3rd and home.
I think Cobb was a more versatile offensive weapon, he could beat you in any way. With his legs, his power, and he rarely struck out (1200 walks, 680 K's, .513 SLG%) he was just impossible to beat.
And when you factor in that it was the deadball era, Cobb was basically the Ruth of his time - the leagues premier power hitter. And he had speed.
Ruth's ability to hit for power is defenitely just as outstanding, not to discredit it. In many ways it's similar to the MVP debate this year, would you rather have the big homerun hitter or the guy who can beat you in a variety of ways offensively?
I've always looked over the numbers and thought that I would rather have Cobb's versatility. But many disagree. Curious to hear your thoughts.
Comment