/

Point taken, I didn't know that. I still maintain my stance that there was possibly an "old school small ball/purist" element present in that first writers vote.

Adding: especially given every writer over age 35 probably spent their formative years following, even idolizing players of the dead ball era. I know I met the mid-90's with a lot of hesitancy because the game seemed to change over night

/

Ruth and Cobb, whatever order as 1st or 2nd.....

I'm just curious...
 

As to think who you guys think is the better player. Please don't take the time to look up the stats to find who is who, just look at make your decision.

Player A: Games: 3298, PA: 13941, AB: 12364, Avg: .305, OBP: 374, SLG: .555, OPS: .928, Runs: 2174, Hits: 3771, 2B: 624, 3B: 98, RBI’s: 2297, SB: 240, SO: 1383

Player B: Games: 2986, PA: 12606, AB: 9847, Avg: 298, OBP: .444, SLG: .607, OPS: 1.051, Runs: 2227, Hits: 2935, 2B: 601, 3B: 77, RBI’s: 1996, SB: 514, SO: 1539

Player C: Games: 2509, PA: 10622, AB: 8399, Avg: .342, OBP: .474, SLG: .690, OPS: 1.164, Runs: 2174, Hits: 2873, 2B: 506, 3B: 136, RBI’s: 2220, BB: 2062, SO: 1330

Player D: Games: 2992, PA: 12496, AB: 10881, Avg: .302, OBP: .384, SLG: .557, OPS: .941, Runs: 2062, Hits: 3283, 2B: 523, 3B: 140, RBI’s: 1903, SB: 338, SO: 1526

Where is Mantle?

I would think Player C is the best of the group.

Ruth, His impact, both on and off the field, was immeasurable.

I am amazed 2 people voted for Frank Baker, are you guys related, or trying to drive prices up on his cards? Holy cow.....

Lol, my thoughts exactly

Player C is by far the best.

I think you actually are asking who is the greatest pre 1947 player. How can you engage in such a discussion without considering Mays, Aaron, Frank Robinson, or Ken Griffey Jr?

One last refrain...
 

Thanks to everyone who weighed in here. I am going to edit the title slightly, so as to avoid any further confusion.

Please know that I truly appreciate and value everyone's opinions. It was actually very nice to watch the thread for a full 24 hours and read everything posted within. Everyone was polite and civil, for which I am grateful.

I have added a couple of my earlier posts below to help explain why Mays, Mantle, et al were not included.

Have a great weekend, everyone.

Best Regards,

Eric

So it isn't allowed to be a career pitcher?

From a purely staistical perspective, rergarding offense, I would take Player C.

Without fielding stats, though, Player D might not be represented fairly.

Both of them changed the game. One made previously unthinkable hitting a reality. The other made previously unthinkable fielding a reality...and, when adding 660 HR to the stats provided for Player D, he's certainly no slouch.

I would say no, because pithin is one of the many facets of the overall game

Agreed...WaJo had more than 100 complete game shutouts, along with many other astounding career numbers. In my humble opinion, he deserves mention in this discussion.

You put player C's walks where you put the other players' stolen bases.

Player A does have a better average of getting the ball in play with a SO every 10 PA and every 9AB. Whereas player C had the worse SO ratio to PA and ABs. So it really depends on what you consider makes someone a better player at the plate. Since RBIs and Runs has a lot to do with who batted in front and behind the player and Average can do a lot with how good the corresponding defense was then the one thing that is dependent on the batter is getting the ball in play I would say player A had the advantage. Also player A has the longer career stamina having played nearly 306 more games then the next longest career. So even though the straight forward stat of career OPS and AVG wouldn't show it, digging deeper into the career stats I would say player A as the advantage.

This is probably true. Back then the writers also didn't put too much weight into vote percentages and first ballots.

I appreicate the want for anonymity but I could identify those stat lines from a mile away:D. Thanks for sticking the unpopular guy in there. He's gotten some mention so far, but not much. It'll be really interesting to see if he ever gets anywhere near the sort of credit that stat line would normally garner... My thought is "no".

No Tris Speaker?
 

The stats are a main factor obviously but what about how the player affected his fellow teammates? I think when people soley look at stats they seem to neglect the intangibles. Im talking about players who were not only good but also made the players around them better. True leaders. A real "spark-plug" if you will. One guy who exemplifies such traits and is surprisingly not on the list is Tris Speaker. I mean what's up with that??? :confused: yes I know he was involved in gambling... Still think he was a great leader as from what I remember from reading.

Overall, factoring everything, I have to say PETE ROSE would be the royal flush of all picks. I need not mention his stats, they are obviously epic. Best in recorded baseball history. He played nearly every position, and was captain of the only team to ever be compared with the 1927 Yankees, the 75 Reds.
But, as an overall American icon, I must mention Teddy Williams.

Wes

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

Seriously, the Reds are the only team compared to the Yankees. I've watched baseball since the mid-sixties. The only team comparable to the "27 Yanks is the 1998 Yankees.
The Reds did have a great team, but Rose was the third best player on that team (after Joe Morgan and Johhny Bench).
And if you think Rose's stats are the best in history, I think you should expand your view of history.

It's not rocket science. I know Pete is not a favorite because of what he is. Ruth and Cobb died before most people here in this forum were even born. I get it. There's nothing complicated about 4256. The thread says best "baseball player." Not most honorable, dynamic, pitcher, runner, coach, donator, war hero, etc. . . . To play "base" ball, the player has to hit the ball, be hit by the ball, or walked, to get on "base." This is what Rose did, very simple, "hit the basball and run to the base before getting "out"," And he did this more than any other player in history. I guess I just thought 4189 of Cobb's wasn't that close to 4256. Aaron did it 3771. I can't boast watching baseball since forever, but I can say the recorded stats are facts, even if the record holders are of questionable integrity. I "bet" you can't find somebody that has "hit" a baseball more than Rose.:D

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

I think many of these writers were from the "small ball" era and worshiped Ty, who exemplified everything good about that style of play. Then along comes Babe, and suddenlty everything changes. I am not surprised that 7 or these writers would vote for Ty and not Ruth, almost as a way to say if was better back in my day.

Of more interest would be the 215 who voted for Babe, Honus and Ty. How would they rank them 1-2-3?

Hey Ian, I hear ya. I look at these quick glance and know who they are, but I agree with you about that player not getting any love.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you have a damn clue what baseball is, or what you're talking about. Baseball isn't just about your ridiculous post above. Don't forget fielding/defense buddy, because you clearly don't see that value. Hitting 'aint everything. Being the best baseball player, you need to do it all. And Rose was no defensive whiz.

Great argument for Cobb, but I still think the best was Ruth
 

Can't argue with this logic except to say the BBWAA gets the easy picks and leaves the tougher ones for other committees. Consequently, I don't put great stock in that esteemed body. Still, Cobb was detested by many and still earned first place on the initial ballot. (I wonder if he would even get 75% from today's BBWAA?)

My vote went to Babe Ruth.

A lot of knowledgeable baseball guys and girls on this board. Look at the voting. Believe it. My vote, Ruth, Ruth Ruth........ then everyone else, for all of the reasons mentioned.

was an easy choice :)

eric p
 

I must say that your moderation of this thread has been masterful.
Your advocacy for civility and scholarly dialogue is most refreshing.
all the best,
barry

Barry,

Please accept my sincere thanks for the kind words. Your feedback is truly appreciated.

Best Regards,

Eric

Well said, good work Eric. Threads like these could easily get out of hand, especially with polls. Way to keep level headed.

Actually the name of the thread was changed to best Prewar player.

You're utterly spurious in your ASSumption of HITs being the most important aspect of baseball. It is runs. Considering how many precious hits Rose had he still had less scored runs then Ruth or Aaron. Rose also barely makes it into the top 100 for RBIs, Yount and Pudge have more.

If Aaron wanted to he could have had 4300 hits while batting over .330. He choose instead to hit for power instead of slapping singles.

Ichiro and Pujols are better then Rose.

Jake,

Hank was an overwhelmed kid who broke into the majors hitting cross-handed and actually turned down an offer from the Giants. Had he played for roughly twenty years in the same lineup as Willie Mays, perhaps this conversation would be completely different. He might have had the luxury of hitting .330 and amassing power numbers beyond comprehension...with Mays on the basepaths.

Just my humble opinion here...that would have been one amazing outfield. Aaron, Mays, McCovey.

Best Regards,

Eric

I love how loaded that Giant team was. McCovey "Stretch" only played outfield because another HOFer, Orlando Cepeda had beaten him to the bigs by a year. Plus you had Marichal/Perry/McCormick (Cy winner)/Jack Sanford pitching. Those guys could just never get over the hump.

Re- Hank vs Willie. I'll never take anything away from Aaron, but he played several years in "the launching pad".. While Mays had to play over a decade in windy Candlestick, before they closed the stadium with an outfield upper deck. That era pre-dates me, but supposedly that '60's Stick was one of the toughest places to hit bombs. Mays, had he not lost virtually two years to military service, and had he played in a hitter friendly park, undoubtedly would have hit more than 700.. And likely passed Ruth first.

Great thread Eric, I do think Mathewson has to be considered especially if pitchers are allowed into the discussion. His stats are pretty remarkable as are Walter Johnson's.....What amazes me is what Cobb's stats were against Johnson, later on in his career he had amazing success against him....

Brent,

Many thanks. Your comments are well received and greatly appreciated.

Best Regards,

Eric

Kevin,

Thank you very much. I appreciate you weighing in with the kind words.

As for Mathewson, I agree. Any discussion about pitchers that does not include him is sorely missing something. I am sure that there are many who would argue he is the greatest ever...and they would be making a valid point.

Regarding Cobb, I remember a portion of Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns that touched on Cobb's approach to hitting against Johnson. Apparently, Cobb would crowd the plate and Johnson would throw outside on the first couple of pitches, for fear of hitting the batter.

Johnson would then ease up a bit and throw the ball over the plate, trying to get a strike. Cobb figured that this was the pitch to hit, knew it was coming, and simply reached out with his bat and let it meet the ball

Ty was a brilliant man, no doubt…and one of the greatest players of all time, in my humble opinion.

Best Regards,

Eric

The obvious answer is Ruth, and that's how I voted. But it's not as simple as you might think. It all depends on how you define "greatest baseball player." I think Ruth tends to get the nod by a large margin because in addition to being the best hitter (or at the very least in the top 2 ever to pick up a bat) he was also a dominant pitcher. But if we're deciding based on the greatest 2-way players, many all-time greats like Wagner and Cobb would have to take a back seat to guys like Martin Dihigo and Bullet Rogan. In fact, those 3 would probably be the finalists, with Ruth still being on top by a fairly large margin.

But the other way of evaluating it is who is the best all-around 5-tool player. This method still seems inadequate to me, but it changes who belongs in the argument. The discussion should probably include Willie Mays, Honus Wagner, Mickey Mantle, Oscar Charleston, maybe DiMaggio if you want. Even Bonds. Possibly Aaron. I wouldn't have a huge problem with you trying to slip Clemente into the argument in spite of his clear lack of power compared to others. But probably not Ruth. Probably not Josh Gibson. Not Cobb. In my opinion, Oscar Charleston tops this list. The problem is, you can argue that Ruth wasn't a swift runner or great defensive outfielder all you want, but no one in their right mind (that didn't grow up in New York as a kid in the 1950s) would take Mickey Mantle over Babe Ruth.

So the only way to really decide is by some other partly subjective manner. For me, I think there are several tiers of players that can all legitimately be included in the discussion of who is the greatest player ever. But I think there are only 4 players in the top tier that should be in the final discussion. Those players are Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Oscar Charleston, and Josh Gibson. It wouldn't offend me to include Willie Mays, but I personally don't put him in the final group. And Cobb simply doesn't belong. Get over it.

Of those 4, Babe Ruth is still my pick. But the margin isn't as big for me as it is for most other people. Charleston has a strong argument for greatest "all-around" player ever to step onto a baseball diamond. People forget that Wagner stole over 700 bases and played an important defensive position. Gibson was a better runner and defensive catcher than he gets credit for. Still, two words: Babe Ruth.

So that's my long-winded way of agreeing with almost everyone else. I mean, Ruth and the rest of these guys are all behind Frank Baker, of course. Clearly it goes Baker, then everyone else, starting with Ruth.

-Ryan

best player
 

When it comes to winning the World Series the best player for a manager is probably a pitcher. Would you rather have Tom Seaver on the mound or Babe Ruth in the lineup? You can always just walk Ruth. That's why I voted "other" for Cy Young. In one game I would take Kevin Brown over Babe Ruth.

NO GEHRIG!? I voted for ruth but still id say the iron horse deserves to at least on the list.

Billy,

Gehrig was in the poll choices, if I am not mistaken.

Best Regards,

Eric

Ryan,

You make a valid point regarding Oscar Charlestson. Please see below, from an earlier thread. The post I refer to is #93.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...60#post1107860

Best Regards,

Eric

Lou Gehrig 8 3.42%

If it is the overall game that you are worried about then why did you only post offensive numbers ONLY? You should have put their fielding stats there for comparison as well.


I still don't understand people who say it is an obvious choice. How can one of the strike out leaders of the pre war era be considered the best player of the pre war era? Even Cobb never struck out more than 55 times in a season, Ruth struck out less than 55 only 5 seasons and 3 of those where when he was a pitcher with Boston. I don't have a gripe if people vote for Ruth, just when they say it is an obvious choice.

The greatest player of the Dead Ball era is without question Ty Cobb.

Babe Ruth technically wouldn't qualify as a possibility as he played MOST of his career post Dead Ball era with a different baseball. Babe Ruth should be taken off this list. His numbers with Boston as a hitter during the Dead Ball era weren't even close to Cobb's during the years the Dead Ball was being used.

In the Dead ball era the best Home run hitters would have only 12-14 homers per year. From 1900 to 1920 there were 13 home run champs that had fewer than 10 home runs in a season.

During the years that Ty Cobb played during the Dead Ball era he led the lead in hitting 12 out of 15 years. Unbelievable!!!!!!

This. Ruth could have been an HOF pitcher if he hadn't become the hitter we all remember. No other player even comes close to matching that ability.

/