I don't mean this as criticism, but since you included Negro Leaguers, how could you leave off Oscar Charleston?

I hear ya. I guess any personal connection re older players is through romanticizing them. No romanticizing Beltran. As a NYer (Yankees) I've seen Beltran on TV plenty of times. Maybe one of the most non-electrifying players around. I'm not even a Met hater, more like indifferent about them but wouldn't mind seeing them do well for the sake of NY baseball. This now makes me have to re-examine my feelings toward Keeler. Did people go bananas when he stepped into an opportune or clutch situation, or did they yawn, Hey Willie, hit one where they ain't.? 8591 ABs and only 241 doubles...not too electrifying.

I guess that's the one glaring error bbcard1 was talking about.

My starting nine...the other 21 will have to wait until tomorrow.
 

P - Walter Johnson
C - Josh Gibson
1B - Lou Gehrig
2B - Rogers Hornsby
SS - Honus Wagner
3B - Frank Baker
LF - Joe Jackson
CF - Ty Cobb
RF - Babe Ruth

Quotes by Ruth's fellow ball players:

"Sometimes I still can't believe what I saw," said Harry Hooper, a Boston teammate of Ruth's. "This 19-year-old kid, crude, poorly educated, only lightly brushed by the social veneer we call civilization, gradually transformed into the idol of American youth and the symbol of baseball the world over - a man loved by more people and with an intensity of feeling that perhaps has never been equaled before or since."

"Ruth made a grave mistake when he gave up pitching. Working once a week, he might have lasted a long time and become a great star." ...Tris Speaker on Babe Ruth's future, 1921.

"He hits the ball harder and further than any man I ever saw." ...Bill Dickey, teammate

Eric, that's a pretty good starting 9. I'd have to think a while if I wanted to change any. My list would be very similar.

I see no 19th century guys... I admit though, that I don't know enough about the top 19th century players. I think it's very hard to compare them even to the early 20th century guys since the game and the way everything was setup was so different. It's also so hard to know what to do with Negro League guys on lists. There's incomplete stats and irregular seasons and everything was much more disorganized in general. It's a shame we'll never really know exactly how each of the top players stacked up. I feel the same way about today's players who were known or highly suspected steroids guys. A guy like Barry Bonds, it's hard to know just where to rank him, if he hadn't done anything. I believe he started in 1999 from what stories say, so if that's true we can see his career arch and his accomplishments up to that point and speculate. But, in the end, it's just that a lot of speculation. I guess that makes for fun debates though.

Don't mean to get into a debate on roids guys, just have some random thoughts.

Erick,

Thanks for the kind words. My original list was comprised entirely of MLB players, and I had Mike Kelly as my catcher.

When I expanded the list to include Josh Gibson, I also placed Oscar Charleston in center. Figuring that the board would roast me for not including a certain Detroit Tiger, I quickly decided against this.

Anyway, since this thread has been conspicuously void of eye candy so far, I figured it would be nice to include a picture of the three players mentioned here.

http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/...ps88164980.jpg

Best Regards,

Eric

My original list left off all but a couple of 19th century guys and included no Negro Leaguers. This will PO the OJ guys, but baseball before 1894 had different rules and was haphazard. All kinds of leagues etc. 5 balls, 4 strikes, foul balls didn't count, pitching boxes, pitchers who were able to pitch ever game because they lobbed it. I just can't judge it. As for Negro Leaguers I'm not a bigot, just the same thing. No real stats to go by. From what I've read I am quite sure many black players would be in the top 30. Josh Gibson not only might be the best catcher of all time, but be up there with Ruth and Cobb. Satchel Paige yes. I don't know much about Oscar Charleston. Maybe he would be at the top also. I'm a stat guy, but I may try revising my list to include some others just on reputation.

I don't think this floats and that you can exclude 19th century players and Negro Leaguers. They were just as good as anyone else. Sure, the game has evolved, but there were good and bad (and great) players back then, just as there are today. You can't penalize a guy just for being born in a certain time period or for having a certain skin color. That's why you see 19th century players and Negro Leaguers in the HOF, because they deserve the recognition just as much as anybody else. Same thing goes with a Top 30 list, it should be the 30 greatest players, period, not just some select group that a self-proclaimed "stat guy" believes to be legitimate. And there are many other stat guys who would completely disagree with your assessment, anyways.

Ruth Undisputed Champion
 

Ruth - Unprecedented and unparalleled combination of average and power. As a pitcher, eighth best winning percentage in MLB history among pitchers with 1000 innings or more.

As to any possible Yankee Stadium factor, in the three years prior to its construction, Ruth hit 148 dingers when the Yanks played half of their games in the Polo Grounds. The baseball historian narrating the tape at the Babe Ruth Museum in Baltimore, claims that had playing fields been as small as they were in Ruth's day, he would have hit 900.

Ruth #1 - End of discussion.

There was a book where it says that Ruth under today's rules and ballparks would have hit 104 HRs in 1921.

Here it is: http://www.amazon.com/Year-Babe-Ruth.../dp/0786719060

Best there ever was. Maybe the best there ever will be.

I think it was his 1921 season...

Good book. Jenkinson did lots of research and included charts and other detailed data along with an outstanding narrative. I assumed everybody here would have a copy of that one.

Please check out Bill James' All-Time rankings and then dig a bit deeper. I was a whisker away from excluding Ty Cobb from my All-Time Starting Nine because of how incredibly amazing Charleston was.

I am still compliling a list of the other 21 players for this "team." I take discussions on this topic very seriously...just ask Paul S. As such, I tend to only provide my opinion when it has been very carefully considered. When last discussing an, "all-time" team, modern players were in play, and Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams were part of the discussion. As per the parameters of this thread, it would appear as though that is not the case.

As such, I have been forced to rethink my choices.

Having said that, I offer an expanded version of my original post. My batting order, for which I am almost certain other opinions will surface, is presented here. Additionally, a few of the "reserves" I have chosen are listed. Please note that my focus lately has been on the pitchers.

1. CF - Ty Cobb
2. SS - Honus Wagner
3. 2B - Rogers Hornsby
4. LF - Joe Jackson
5. 1B - Lou Gehrig
6. C - Josh Gibson
7. RF - Babe Ruth
8. 3B - Frank Baker
9. P - Walter Johnson

P - Christy Mathewson
P - Joe Wood
P - Rube Waddell
P - Satchel Paige
P - Cy Young
P -
P -
P -
P -
C - Mike Kelly
1B - Jimmie Foxx
2B - Napoleon Lajoie
SS -
3B - Harold Traynor
OF - Oscar Charleston
OF -
OF -
27 -
28 -
29 -
30 -
Manager - John McGraw

A quick sidebar.

Just imagine how good the 1932 Crawfords were with three of these players.

Charleston, Gibson and Paige.

Would have loved to see them play.

Well, if you take King Kelly, you've pretty much got to take Buck Ewing because he was even better than Kelly. Those two guys were legends, it's important to remember that 19th Cent. baseball had a very different dynamic, and the defensive responsibilities of the catcher were huge, meaning Kelly and Ewing were considered the two best players of their time. So I think they could both be included on the list.

I also don't see how you take Smokey Joe Wood over Kid Nichols. Nichols posted a miniscule ERA considering the 1890's were an insanely offensive era, and he pitched three times as many innings as Joe Wood.

Jake,

I completely agree...tremendous ballplayers, all three of them. They're in my top 30.

Best,

Eric

Cy,

Buck Ewing is still on my radar...so is Kid Nichols. And my All-Time Pitching Staff has yet to be finalized. As for "Smokey" Joe Wood, he was one helluva hard throwing pitcher in his day...or any day, for that matter. Some of his contemporaries considered him the fastest hurler in the game. Whether Nichols makes the cut or not, I would still definitely "draft" Wood for my team.

And if we're truly considering the 19th Century players in terms of their prowess, with respect for the rules in place at the time, I might consider Ross Barnes, for his excellence at the art of fair-foul hitting...and I am not kidding. What a great hitter he would be, coming off the bench.

Respectfully,

Eric

My "team"...debates are more than welcome
 

1. CF - Ty Cobb
2. SS - Honus Wagner
3. 2B - Rogers Hornsby
4. LF - Joe Jackson
5. 1B - Lou Gehrig
6. C - Josh Gibson
7. RF - Babe Ruth
8. 3B - Frank Baker
9. P - Walter Johnson

P - Christy Mathewson
P - Addie Joss
P - Joe Wood
P - Rube Waddell
P - Satchel Paige
P - Cy Young
P - Kid Nichols
P - Lefty Grove
P - “Pete” Alexander
C - Mike Kelly
1B - Jimmie Foxx
2B - Napoleon Lajoie
SS - “Pop” Lloyd
3B - Harold Traynor
OF - Oscar Charleston
OF - “Cool Papa Bell”
OF - Tris Speaker
27 - Buck Ewing
28 - Ross Barnes
29 - Eddie Collins
30 - “Turkey” Stearnes
Manager - John McGraw

Eric,

I mean, guys like Ross Barnes and Joe Wood, they've got nice numbers, but they didn't play very long. Just six years. Neither of them are in the HOF. It is nice of you to think of them, but neither belongs on a Top 30 list.

Cy,

OK...I am willing to discuss this. Who would you suggest in their place?

Barnes is (admittedly) a marginal addition to the Top 30. In my humble opinion, though, his exceptional bat control and excellence at the craft of fair-foul hitting warrant his inclusion in this discussion. After all, in terms of the 19th Century game, he was a force to be reckoned with. The game is more than home runs and strikeouts, right?

Just my opinion...

As for Smokey Joe Wood, I would be more than comfortable with handing him the ball under any circumstance. The guy was a monster...how would hitters from any era feel about standing in against him? I think he would likely be viewed in the same light as Bob Gibson...if we were talking about the greatest players of all time...without restricting this discussion to Pre-War.

Best Regards,

Eric

Well, you've got Eddie Plank, Vic Willis, Tim Keefe, Pud Galvin, John Clarkson. Not to say that Joe Wood didn't put up great numbers, but he was finished at age 25. He just doesn't have the body of work.

/

Casually noticing the amount of, and player-position, of players from pre 1900, post 1900 dead ball, live ball, and negro leagues. From my unofficial glancing it seems live ball pitchers are lacking.

Ross Barnes played 9 years of recognized major league baseball.. He also played 1 year in the International Association, which was a rival of the National League at the time. In addition, he played 5 years for the Rockford Forest Cities, one of the eras best teams, before the formation of the National Assoiciation in 1871. Remember, we shouldn't penalize a player for being born too soon. Barnes is the only player in major league history to hit .400 in four seasons, yet he is excluded from HOF consideration. There is no question that players who started their careers before 1871, should have an avenue for HOF induction. This is the most underrepresented group in the HOF. There are many umpires, executives, and managers in the HOF. You know how many pioneers are in the HOF, elected strictly because of their playing career? Two- George Wright and Candy Cummings. TWO. It's ludicrous. I don't want to hijack this thread, but it drives me nuts that the HOF election procedures make no allowance for players like Barnes, whose careers started before 1871. They just fall through the cracks while more umpires, more executives, and more managers go in in the pioneer-executive category, but no players go in because there is no pioneer-player category. Barnes may not belong on the 30 best list, but he belongs in the HOF.

Cy,

These are all excellent suggestions. If you had to pick just one in favor of Wood, who would it be?

Best Regards,

Eric

Gary,

Thanks for weighing in with this. I truly appreciate it.

And I personally don't think you're hijacking the thread. Everyone was invited to provide their Top 30 List. I made a slightly unconventional addition to my list. Part of the reason was because I think Barnes was a great hitter. The other part was to encourage comments such as yours.

In terms of the 30 best Pre-War players, I chose to adopt a, "who would I pick for my team" mindset. I did this because I enjoy hearing the opinions of others on this topic. Along with making for great conversation, I invariably learn new things along the way.

Again, please accept my sincere thanks.

Best Regards,

Eric

Howard,

King Carl is definitely a great choice. I will certainly consider him, along with the outstanding selections offered by Cy.

Best Regards,

Eric

Although his career was very short (and it's hard to blame a guy for dying of Yellow Fever) Chino Smith was as good as anybody for a short while.

I would go with Eddie Plank. Tim Keefe would be a close second. They both have a similar WAR rating, but it took Keefe more innings to accomplish that rating, meaning that Plank was a bit more effective.

Cy,

OK, so Plank vs. Wood...quite a matchup. Please give me a little time to drill down more deeply and consider this. I understand and greatly respect the statistical references; however, we are considering the, "top" players from before WWII.

Given the differences between eras and the incomplete record keeping associated with a few of the other players mentioned, I distilled the question posed by the OP down to one essential query...who do I think are the "best" 30 players from before WWII. In that light, I created my list.

Out of curiosity, as manager, with both of them in their prime, who would you tap (Plank or Wood) to pitch the most important game of the season, if they were your two top hurlers?

Please know that I am not trying to be confrontational. Either one of those guys would be great. And I may actually remove Wood and include Plank (or Carl Hubbell, as someone suggested) on my list. It's the give-and-take here...the conversation about the game...that I find fascinating.

I hope this finds you well...and agreeable to entertaining this discussion.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

Eric

Wow...a .398 career batting average. I did a double-take on that stat. Had he not died at 31, this discussion might have been quite different.

Candidly, beyond this, I do not know as much about Charles Smith as I would like to. Please help fill me in on what he did.

Best Regards,

Eric

Hehehehe, Eric, I thought that this is where you were going with your little gambit. To get me to choose a guy and then have them tee off against each other. Well, I am very confident that Eddie Plank had the better career.

I am not talking about one game, one year, or who did what, when or how. Joe Wood, in his prime, may have been better than Plank. But his prime did not last very long. Tragically, he got injured, but it happens all the time.

Well, if you don't want to count longevity, then maybe Louis Sockalexis was one of the top 30 players of pre WWII. But I don't believe he was, because it is all about what you do on the field, and that means that how long you last means something.

So if I were a manager, to answer your question, and a rookie Joe Wood and a rookie Eddie Plank were both in spring training, and I could only take one of them on the team, and I already knew how their final stats would end out, I would go with Plank, because he had the best career. And that is what we are talking about here.

Now, if Joe Wood hadn't gotten injured, he would have been one of the top 30 pre-WWII players. And if Rick Ankiel hadn't lost his mind, he would have been one of the greatest pitchers of the 21st century. And if my aunt had balls...

Cy,

Interesting post.

It does have me leaning towards Plank, though. I looked more closely into his career numbers and what you say makes quite a bit of sense. In fact, I have read through this thread again and will freely admit that you seem to have a much better grasp on statistics than I.

Back to Plank...wow!
Debuted at 25 years of age
326 wins
.627 winning percentage
2.35 ERA.
69 shutouts
410 complete games
1.119 WHIP

Having said that, there is one thing keeping me from coming over to your side on this topic. I would truly appreciate having the opportunity to view your top 30. I didn't find it upon re-reading, although it is possible that I missed it.

Thanks for entertaining this discussion, and I sincerely look forward to your reply.

Have a tremendous evening.

Best Regards,

Eric

A twist ...
 

I think pitchers can be underrated. Top pitching is usually more valuable than top hitting when going for a World Series title.

This twist is in selecting the best players to win a World Series. Basically, give me the top pitchers, and I will dominate your top hitters.

So it goes (for pre ww2):

1 Walter Johnson - starter
2 Lefty Grove - reliever
3 Mathewson - starter
4 Satchel Paige - starter/reliever
5 Cy Young - starter
6 Alexander - starter

7 Ruth
8 Cobb
9 Wagner
10 Speaker
11 etc.