Why is Cobb so low? I don't see it.
5th is not low. Just saying...
Cobb played in an era without any training and poor nutrition. Yet he was still able to win 12 batting titles, hit over .400 three times, and end a career that included 11434 at-bats. Some players can't hit that in one season. He hit well his entire career, even when the live-ball was introduced, which stumped some players badly.
Everyone in his era had poor training and poor nutrition.
Also, I didn't know that the introduction of the live ball stumped some players. Do you have any examples?
Cobb hit 117 homers in his career. This is very good considering that he played about 20 years in the dead-ball. He hit 1937 RBIs and is second all-time in runs. He was a marvelous base-stealer and no slouch when it came to fielding. Cobb alos held a great .433 OBP and .512 SLG despite having few homers.
I find it almost impossible to convert power numbers from the deadball era with any sort of accuracy. Because almost everyone I've looked at during the deadball era tended to hit between 2 and 12 HR in a year. And everyone's numbers fluctuated. You didn't have one person always hitting about 10-12 HR a year. Everyone's numbers were as low as 2-3, and many people's were as high as 10-12. I see no good way to adjust everyone's numbers fairly. Is it possible he would have been able to hit 30 HR today? Sure. But it's also possible he wouldn't have hit more than 20 in his highest HR season.
RBI and runs don't mean anything to me, since they're a factor of his teammates.
Cobb had to face tough pitchers in his era. Pitchers that copuld use spit-balls, etc. He is the king of the contact. I don't see how he is lesser than Bonds, Hornsby, and Wagner.
If you need me to go on, just give a shout.[/quote] He's lower than Bonds*, but more than Bonds. Bonds was a monster before steroids - in 1992, he hit .311, with .456 OB, .624 SLG, 205 OPS+, and almost 40 SB. And he was a great fielder too. But while on steroids, he put up arguably the best hitting seasons ever. That's why Bonds* is ahead of Cobb.
Wagner played under the same conditions Cobb did, so that makes things easier. He was the ultimate in versatility, playing almost every position. He was a phenomenal fielder at every position, but most importantly, at his primary position, SS, the most important position on the field (other than maybe Catcher, but they're almost a separate category).
Hornsby was a better hitter than Cobb IMO, and played a position that's just as important.
Part of the reason I rank people as I do is because I do a lot of All-Time drafts. And while CFers are somewhat scarce, Shortstops and 2nd basemen are VERY scarce. In the current All-Time draft I'm doing on BBF (not the Bizarro one), there were only 3 SS I wanted on my team. Anyone else, I would have just used up some late pick to get somebody. There were a bit more options at 2nd base, but Hornsby had such a huge margin over the others.
Another thing is that I deduct points from Cobb because I believe he was one of the meanest players to play the game. And that hurts a team. A lot of people believe that Hornsby was also a clubhouse cancer, but from what I've seen so far, I don't think he was.
