Just curious here on your opinion. In 1909 Ty Cobb hit 9 Hr's ( probably all inside the park jobs) which represented 8.3% of all Hr's hit in the American league that year. Mark McGwire hit 70, which represented 2.7% of all home runs hit in the National League that year.
In 1909 Hr were rare so 9 is a big deal.
In 1998 Hr's were very common ( probably 10 hit 45)
Which becomes more impressive?
This is the problem with comparing players in different eras by stats.
Not suggesting Ty Cobb would have hit tons of HR's today (who knows), he was a different type of player. And if McGwire hit in 1909 who's to say how many he would hit. Different time.
2007-06-02 04:47:22 · 8 answers · asked by RAY B 4 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Reva..You like me are probably enjoy baseball history...I know Cobb was a ****, but at that time that sort of behavior seemed to be tolerated way more than today..Think of the story of Cobb and Speaker throwing games, or Ruth's barnstorming..Times have changed. I agree with most you said though.
2007-06-02 08:25:32 · update #1
The raw numbers are difficult to compare, yes. But the hitter's role hasn't changed -- get on base, advance teammate baserunners, score runs. And there are ways to evaluate a player's season again the rest of the league, and those numbers can be compared, because they are automatically relative.
McGwire and Cobb each had, in your example, a league-leading season. That the raw numbers are so vastly different isn't important for comparison; that they were each in turn the best in their league-seasons is.
McGwire 1998 posted a 217 adjOPS and 179 runs created (led his league).
Cobb 1909 posted a 194 adjOPS and 126 RC (led his league).
Pretty good years, both league-dominating. Cobb led the #2 player in RC by +20, McGwire by +22; on a percentage basis, Cobb outperformed his league by a little more.
2007-06-02 05:07:15 · answer #1 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, no matter how it's hit, a HR is 4 bases, a run scored and at least 1 RBI.
The important points are these:
It IS a different time, and you're quite right, you can't compare players from different times. That's why, when you ask if this player or this player is a HOF'er, you start by asking if he was the best at his position during his career.
As well, Cobb's behaviour on the field would have him suspended on a routine basis That little stunt when he climbed into the stand and started beating up a disabled fan would have had him tossed out of the game for at least the rest of the year, or for the length of his jail sentence, whichever was longer. When he wasn't suspended, he'd be the target of so many close pitches and hard slides that he wouldn't be able to stay healthy enough to play.
You might be better to ask the same question, but of Home Run Baker and Babe Ruth. That way, you're at least talking about two players who played under playing similar conditions, which also has a big affect on the game itself and on the players.
2007-06-02 13:35:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Say what you will about his personality, if I had one game to win I'd want Ty Cobb on my team.
In the context of what you're talking about, we should be in utter awe of Buck Freeman's 25 HR in 1899.
2007-06-02 12:34:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
im not sure how to answer except these three words. dead ball era. baseballs were made so much differently then and that accounts for the lesser number of homeruns.
2007-06-02 12:10:40 · answer #4 · answered by KenKel1122 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ty Cobb's a douchebag racist. Who cares what he did?
2007-06-02 11:55:00 · answer #5 · answered by GOB BLUTH 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, you said it yourself. Different time. They are both equally impressive.
2007-06-02 11:52:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yea there is so many steroids going around today
2007-06-02 11:59:50 · answer #7 · answered by Scotty 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no way no steriods incobbs time
2007-06-02 11:55:57 · answer #8 · answered by Mark S 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋