Who is the greatest player of the Pre-War Era?
 

Sorry..trying this again.

Cy Young
 

Purely for the sake of argument, I was going to say Cy Young, and went to baseball reference to find a stat to back up my claim. This was the first stat I looked at, the all-time WAR stat (Wins against replacement), it does not support my argument, but almost did.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...R_career.shtml

Thanks for the early votes, everybody. I am going to give this a few bumps to push it past the earlier thread...which did not include the poll.

My apologies for those who posted there. I tried to get the poll linked onto this thread. For some reason, it did not take.

Best,

Eric

cobb
 

greatest player if we're talkin' stats and nothing else.

all the best,
barry

No Aaron?
 

Hammerin' Hank missed the list? :)

Even if you take away ALL of his homers, he still has over 3000 hits!

Not sure if he's the best (I voted Ruth), but Hank needs to be considered IMHO.

Barry,

Please accept my sincerest thanks for you weighing in here.

Best Regards,

Eric

Vince,

Agreed...Aaron was one helluva a ballplayer.

Best,

Eric

Ruth is a no doubter in my mind, no one ever single handedly changed the game like he did... maybe in any sport? Wilt Chamberlain maybe close? The pitching record and WS pitching records are just icing on the cake. Cobb 1a by himself.. then other top 10-20 types like Wagner, Mays (maybe best 5 tooler ever), WaJo, Matty, Hornsby, Williams, Musial, Speaker, E Collins, Aaron, Bonds, etc in a 2 category (2nd tier not in any particular order, and not complete in any way)

Not only is Ruth #1, but whoever you put second (Cobb, Mays, or Wagner), the #2 player will be closer to the #20 player than to Ruth.

What always struck me about Ruth was when he was pitching, he had a fairly slender athletic body that was better suited for being an all around baseball player with base running and stealing in mind. Then when he became a hitter and switched to the outfield, his body turned into a slow, sloppy, overweight pitcher's body. That extra weight did probably help with power behind his swing, but I just wonder how good he could have been had he possessed the body and speed to be an all around ball player like Cobb and Wagner. Hmmm....

Ruth
 

We all know all about Ruth hitting a few homers, having a .342 lifetime average, a couple other things at the plate, all of which make him a candidate, based on hitting.

When you add in his 2.28 lifetime ERA with 97 pitching victories, including his 3-0 record in the World Series (with one of those WS wins being a 14 inning complete game), are we really still thinking about anybody else?

Doug

I'd vote but I don't see Sammy Sosa on the list. My God, people, he and McGwire saved baseball!

I am going to have to go with Willie Mays!! I was going to say Mantle....but I am biased now that I own his ''rookie'' card...lolllll!!!

Okay, I'll come clean. I vote for me twice under 'None of the Above.'

He would have been a BEAST. He clearly had superhuman hand eye coordination and ridiculous upper body strength. He hit 714 and over .340, while basically walking toward the mound as the pitch approached and swinging a 40+ oz bat. I could maybe do that in a batting cage, but facing different pitchers/pitches, different speeds and still making those moving parts work?!? That said, there's no doubt in my mind he'd have outdone himself had be maintained a more athletic body type. He'd still have that ridiculous hand/eye but would also be fast enough to leg out some more soft infield grounds (imagine how deep infields must have played him).. maybe turn some 450 ft gappers into triples/HR's... probably been a bette outfielder with an already great arm... and maybe extended his career and peak production a little longer (even though there was little drop off until the very end).

What? No Sadaharu Oh? :D

As much as I love Cobb's tenacity and approach to the game, I gotta give this one to the Babe.

I hate voting for a Yankee, but gotta be Ruth.

Hold on! Dunlop isn't listed in the poll. ;)

George Herman by a mile

Honus is for me number 2

I would say Willie Mays.

Frank Baker made the cut, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron didn't. Hmmm....

Mantle played hurt most of his career and still put up awesome numbers. Can you imagine what he would have done had he actually been healthy?

Ruth
 

It's too hard to argue with Ruth as a player and his impact on the game. I didn't see any mention of Rose who was the most dynamic player I ever saw play. I very unfortunately had to live Portsmouth Ohio for a few years as a kid and though I wasn't a Red's fan(having moved from Illinois) it was hard to overlook his superiority on the field. I really enjoyed watching him play. Nolan Ryan was another beast of a player that when you watched him perform live just seemed to control the game.

Let us not forget The Say Hey Kid. Remember, he spent some time in the Army!!
I believe he would have made the 700 club if not for the time in the Army.

Good morning, Barry.

I took my Pre-War starting nine, added, "none of the above" as the tenth choice, and posted the thread...nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, it seems pretty clear...that George Herman Ruth fellow would be crushing the competition, no matter who it was.

Thanks for weighing in and have a wonderful weekend.

Best Regards,

Eric

:)

Well I read that Branch Rickey who saw all the great ones play up to and including Aaron Mays Mantle Williams Musial said that if he was starting a team
the first player he would pick was Wagner

To be fair Wagner is also almost always up there with Cobb and Ruth as top 3 players of all time.

I am extremely surprised, more or less dissappointed with this 'list'.

You have Hornsby (not even close to top 10), same for Jackson, Baker isn't even top 30, Josh Gibson (come on), and no Bonds, or Mays?...interesting...is this like the greatest pre-war player of all-time? If so, then your list is justified.

Well, there's really not much doubt in my mind that it's Ruth. Over the years, I've found the primary reasons some people disagree with this is:

• They don't like his homerun, power hitting style of play. Furthermore, all the photos they see of him is when he's old and out of shape and they discount him because "no way some old fat guy can be the greatest player ever."
• They claim he wasn't an all-around player. Well, call me crazy, but I never saw Willie Mays go 94-46 as a pitcher.
• Because he is always assumed to be the best player ever by the majority of credible baseball analysts and historians today, people pick someone else to be a contrarian and/or unique. Rather than just mindlessly following the pack, they bring up some other player who had a great career. Issue is, these careers simply don't compare to Ruth's.
• They make some excuse for some older player about them not playing in the live ball era.

As far as the best pitcher ever, I personally go with Cy Young. People seem to discount him for some reason, but when you look at his numbers, they're just incredible. I'm sure Walter Johnson was a great pitcher, but in a direct comparison, Cy Young has got to be the pick.

Ughhh, not worth arguing again...

Why is Frank Baker even on the ballot?:confused:

Seems like that's kind of the point of every "Who is the greatest player ever thread?" What purpose does a thread like this serve, other than to open up discussions and arguments about who the greatest player ever is?

Babe Ruth did a grave disservice to the game by making this argument not even close...it is only even an interesting argument if you either introduce a caveat that the game was for some reason different in that day...no air travel, no black/international players...or you completely disregard that he had several years at a hall of fame pace as a pitcher before becoming a revolutionary hitter.

Maybe the best thing about him is that he also had a couple of off seasons and failures on and off the field. Fully a superstar and fully human at the same time.

+1....Didn't he hit 3 homeruns in one of his last games as a Boston Brave? He also still to this day holds records as a pitcher.

And I did this because the noise from a few of the other threads was benumbing. Sorry, guys...guess I zoned out.

Anyways, carry on. And have a great weekend.

Because if you do a search, there are at least 10 other threads in the past year with this same argument, heck, I even started one. My vote is Bonds, and you can read my opinions on that in the many many other threads.

Babe Ruth ftw
 

Anyone who smoked too much, drank too much, partied too much and rarely, if ever, worked out and could still put up the numbers Ruth did deserves the honour! :D

I'll go with the BBWAA who voted for the first class of HOF'ers in 1936. This was right after Ruth's career and since everyone hated Cobb (according to current belief, though he helped a lot of players with fiancial problems). The top 3 vote getters from the 226 writers were : 1) Cobb 222, 2) Ruth 215 and 3) Wagner 215. These voters were from the same era. Hard to believe with Cobb's reputation, he still received the most votes. He must have been "one hell of a player ". He gets my vote.

My vote : Ruth

Appreciate your effort Eric.. it was a nice little baseball centric break from the other things you refer to.

I'm still Babe all the way regardless of the original baseball writers vote. At the time of his HOF induction, I think there must still have been quite a few crotchety old school sports writers/purists who'd grown up on dead ball era and tactics.. and who preferred the "science" of Cobb's game as opposed to the brawn of Ruth's. Babe only won 1 MVP during his career, which is nuts considering he lead the league in HR's and had 13 wins in the same year, and broke the single season HR record 4 times in his career!! (worth noting Cobb only won 1 MVP too).

In 1936, baseball had still been a dead ball game for the majority of its history, and what Ruth had done was probably still unsettling to some. As years/decades/eras have gone by since, we see even more clearly that Ruth is the greatest vehicle of change the game has ever seen (except maybe J Robinson for totally different reasons).. and it's greatest/most influential player ever.

Cobb is still my untied 1a.

For those people who say Young is the best fail to realize that not even his peers / baseball voters thought he was that good with receiving 76% in the HOF vote. If you throw out Young's 511 wins (which he pitched the most innings / started the most games and completed the most games) he wasn't better than Matty or Johnson of that era. He averaged 111 k's per season (I realize it's the dead ball era), but he never had more than 210 which Johnson topping 300 twice. Johnson pitched for a far worse team and had a lower era / more shut outs / more k's / over 2,000 less hits allowed. He is the Pete Rose of the dead ball era of someone that was good, but his numbers are more of a factor that he pitched more than anyone, than the fact that he was dominate.

He also pitched for better teams than Johnson did.

I agree, I think WaJo is the unparalelled pitcher of his era, and all who'd come before him. I'm a big Matty fan and collector, but I also don't think he really compares with WaJo's sheer power. All are amazing, Matty/Alexander's numbers are incredible, and Young's durability and WHIP's are nuts.. but WaJo struck out lots of guys in an era when batters rarely struck out. Imagine striking out 300+ when everyone you're facing has strikeout rates like Tony Gwynn or Ichiro

% of ballots on first ever HOF vote in 1936:
Cobb 98.2%
Ruth 95.1%
Wagner 95.1%
Matty 90.7%
WoJo 83.6%

Today, many say Ruth is the clear-cut best ever. 80 years ago, the voters didn't see it that way.

Again, I must ask, why in the world is Homerun Baker listed in the poll? For that matter, if there were 50 players listed, why would he be one of them??

Per my earlier post, I think the bias of some writers may have affected this HOF vote.. Ruth and his style of hitting were the biggest jolt the game had ever seen (and has ever seen since). After Ruth, offense became more of a station to station, wait for the 3 run HR style of play, which was an affront to those who'd loved the strategic bunt, steal, squeeze style of small ball that preceded him. Ruth broke the HR record 4 times! and won only 1 MVP. I've gotta think there was some old school writer's bias there.

wins against replacement list
 

FWIW, the all-time WAR list ranks Baker here....

153 Andruw Jones
154 Frank Baker
155 David Cone
156 Joe Jackson

I don't see how anyone could not answer Babe Ruth. It doesn't matter how the sports writers voted. There has only been one player in the history of the game to single handedly outhit an entire league. That player is Babe Ruth.

As talented and great as Cobb was, he didn't change the game. He only did things better than the players around him.

But Ruth did change the game, and every player after him has been trying to live up to what he did.

Hi Kevin,

I understand why he may seem out of place. As for answering your question, please see the posts below.

Best Regards,

Eric

/

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.