Top 30 Pre-WWII Players

[MMarvelli]

Originally Posted by conor912

Again, different eras so I still feel like were comparing apples to oranges, but I will indulge your WS point. Look at the guys who batted around Ruth in the order and those who batted around Cobb. It takes a whole team to win. Look at all those other HOFers on the Yankees! Had Ruth been the only superstar on his team like Cobb was, he never would have seen one pitch to hit.

It seems to me that is faulty logic. A player is judged on what he actually did, not what he could have done if things were different. In that case a player like Ernie Banks should be in the top 5 of the post war 30 because he would have been outstanding if he switched places with Mantle. Cobb was on a team and his stats were his stats to live with. Ruth was on a team and his stats and impact were his to live with. That is the luck of the draw.

Ruth saved the game after the Black Sox scandal put baseball in a tailspin. Ruth took the game to a higher level that is still the model for today. If the argument then reverts to the fact that Ruth did not play with a dead ball, I would agree. Cobb didn't change the game he just played it. Dead ball sucks for Cobb!

[Paul S]

Mike Mattsey, Way to go!

[E93]

Originally Posted by conor912

No way. I will give Ruth the "pop-icon" edge, but if I'm fielding a team, I'm taking Ty #1 every time.

+1
JimB

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by E93

+1
JimB

Ruth was a crack fielder...

[MMarvelli]

Quotes found in Baseball Almanac:

"(Ty) Cobb is a prick. But he sure can hit. God Almighty, that man can hit." - Babe Ruth

"(Ty) Cobb would have to play center field on my all time team. But where would that put (Tris) Speaker? In left. If I had them both, I would certainly play them that way." - John McGraw

"The Babe was a great ballplayer, sure, but (Ty) Cobb was even greater. Babe (Ruth) could knock your brains out, but (Ty) Cobb would drive you crazy." - Tris Speaker

"The greatest name in American sports history is Babe Ruth, a hitter." - Ted Williams

"If I'd just tried for them dinky singles I could've batted around .600." - Babe Ruth

[bn2cardz]

1. Walter Johnson
2. Cy Young
3. Ty Cobb
4. Babe Ruth
5. Honus Wagner
6. Rogers Horsby
7. Pete Alexander
8. Lou Gehrig
9. Tris Speaker
10. Christy Mathewson
11. Kid Nichols
12. Lefty Grove
13. Nap Lajoie
14. Eddie Collins
15. Jimmie Foxx
16. Mel Ott
17. Tim Keefe
18. Cap Anson
19. Eddie Plank
20. John Clarkson
21. Charlie Gehringer
22. Jim McCormick
23. Ed Delahnty
24. Pud Galvin
25. Old Hoss Radbourn
26. Paul Waner
27. Dan Brouthers
28. Harry Heilmann
29. Al Simmons
30. Johnny Mize

This is a list I came up with based off each players ranking average for Gray Ink, HOF Monitor, Jaws, and WAR.

[Harford20]

I also would have to either divide into hitters and pitchers (as Ken M) or position (as Mike M). Here is my Hitter/Pitcher list
1. Babe Ruth
2. Ty Cobb
3. Honus Wagner
4. Rogers Hornsby
5. Lou Gehrig
6. Joe Jackson
7. Eddie Collins
8. Tris Speaker
9. Ted Williams
10. Nap Lajoie
11. Oscar Charleston
12. Jimmy Foxx
13. Joe DiMaggio
14. Josh Gibson
15. Cap Anson
16. Mickey Cochrane
17. Mel Ott
18. Frank Frisch
19. Sam Crawford
20. Joe Cronin

Pitchers
1. Walter Johnson
2. Cy Young
3. Christy Mathewson
4. Satchel Paige
5. Kid Nichols
6. G.C. Alexander
7. Tim Keefe
8. Lefty Grove
9. John Clarkson
10. Smoky Joe Wood

[SushiX37]

Originally Posted by wolf441

My one comment would be that had the color barrier been broken thirty years sooner, we might be talking Oscar Charleston as the greatest of all time.

If that were the case, my money would have been on Josh Gibson. The landscape of baseball would have been VASTLY different if that was the case. Could you imagine Satchel Paige in his prime pitching to some of these guys!? By the time he made it to the majors he was an old man...regardless of how old he "claimed" to be.

Rich

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

Great topic, would have to give quite a bit of thought to 2-20, but without question Ruth is #1, comparing his hitting (OPS, OPS+, there's more to hitting than batting average) to Cobb, its not even close.

Agreed. I think it's just contrarian to claim anybody was better than Ruth.

[packs]

Cobb was a great hitter but he didn't change the game. Nothing he did hadn't been done before, he was just better at it.

The Babe, however, changed baseball forever. He outhit an entire league. Everything he ever did was unheard of until he did it.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by conor912

Again, different eras so I still feel like were comparing apples to oranges, but I will indulge your WS point. Look at the guys who batted around Ruth in the order and those who batted around Cobb. It takes a whole team to win. Look at all those other HOFers on the Yankees! Had Ruth been the only superstar on his team like Cobb was, he never would have seen one pitch to hit.

So the fact that Ruth had Gehrig behind him makes up for a 543 point difference in World Series OPS?

[packs]

In 1923 Ruth just missed winning the Triple Crown despite batting 393 and won his only MVP award. He then hit 368 in the World Series including 3 home runs. Bob Meusel batted behind Ruth that year and in that series. Bob Meusel had 9 home runs that year.

Ruth was a beast. It didn't matter who hit in front of him or behind him. He didn't need Gehrig, though who would complain.

[cyseymour]

Butch Wynegar career OPS .695
Ty Cobb World Series OPS .668

[goodtricks]

Added an intial look at the Top 15 based on the feedback received thus far in OP.

[glchen]

Here's my crack at it:

01. Babe Ruth
02. Ty Cobb
03. Honus Wagner
04. Christy Mathewson
05. Lou Gehrig
06. Walter Johnson
07. Joe Jackson
08. Cy Young
09. Cap Anson
10. Nap Lajoie
11. Rogers Hornsby
12. Lefty Grove
13. Tris Speaker
14. Jimmie Foxx
15. Ed Delahanty
16. Eddie Collins
17. George Sisler
18. Kid Nichols
19. G.C Alexander
20. Willie Keeler
21. Ed Walsh
21. Dan Brouthers
22. Eddie Plank
23. Carl Hubbell
24. Jesse Burkett
25. Charlie Gehringer
26. Rube Waddell
27. Mel Ott
28. Harry Heilmann
29. Mordecai Brown
30. Mickey Cochrane

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by packs

In 1923 Ruth just missed winning the Triple Crown despite batting 393 and won his only MVP award. He then hit 368 in the World Series including 3 home runs. Bob Meusel batted behind Ruth that year and in that series. Bob Meusel had 9 home runs that year.

Ruth was a beast. It didn't matter who hit in front of him or behind him. He didn't need Gehrig, though who would complain.

Exactly. Look at his 1921 season. It's utterly ridiculous. It's ridiculous even for video game stats and well before Lou Gehrig was in the picture.

152g 540ab 204h 177Runs! .378avg. .512obp 44 doubles 16 triples! 59 Homeruns 171 RBI! (yes that's 170+runs and 170+Rbi without Gehrig)! 17 stolen bases to throw on top for all the roto fantasy nuts! .846 SLG 1.359OPS 457 total bases! .....

Take a moment. try and let those numbers sink in a bit, I know it's hard..

That was just his third year really as a hitter, he was busy becoming one of the best young pitchers in the game and setting scoreless innings records in World Series before that!

He was on his way to a hall of fame career as pitcher, but he was just too good a hitter!

It was like Ruth was from another planet. He was a Hercules type iconic transcendent sports figure. (Remember Benny the Jet's words from sandlot? More than a man but less than a God like Hercules or something!) Who knows when we'll see another Ruthian player in any sport. I'm confident it likely won't be in my lifetime or maybe even my grand-kids. As far as I'm concerned he was the most ridiculously naturally talented athlete who ever lived, in any sport. Just imagine if he actually didn't party like he did and binge eat and drink himself fat and stupid.... Imagine he exercised and ate right and got sleep and played int he size parks they play in now? Imagine his numbers over a 162 game season instead of a 154? Imagine he never pitched and had all those other years compiling ridiculous hitting stats? 900+ home-runs? Could've been easily when you factor in all those circumstances. I'm amazed how many people think it's even up for discussion who was the best of all time. No doubt Cobb and Ted Williams were absolutely amazing in their own rights but to me it's not even a discussion for who's number one. I'm not even sure it's much of a discussion when you factor in guys from all sports...But that's just my opinion and everyone is certainly entitled to their own...

[howard38]

/

[Piratedogcardshows]

As far as what Babe Ruth would do in todays ballparks,Im sure the 295 foot short porch in right helped a bit with Ruth's Home Run Totals in Old Yankee Stadium.I would love to see a chart of his Home Runs compared from Right,Left,and Center.Just saying.

[packs]

Come on. You're really suggesting Babe Ruth, who out slugged an entire league, got some gimme's?

I looked some things up. The year Ruth hit 60 he hit more home runs away than he did at home.

For his career he hit almost exactly the same amount of home runs at home (346) as he hit away (364). I guess information on 4 of those homers isn't available on Baseball Reference. He batted .347 at home and .339 on the road. The man was a machine. Hands down the most dominating athlete in any individual sport that ever lived.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by Jason

As far as what Babe Ruth would do in todays ballparks,Im sure the 295 foot short porch in right helped a bit with Ruth's Home Run Totals in Old Yankee Stadium.I would love to see a chart of his Home Runs compared from Right,Left,and Center.Just saying.

Do you know how many balls he hit to the alleys and center that would have been homeruns? Also, the foul rules were different, which subtracted even more. I'll post some spray charts tomorrow. They played exhibition games during road trips that didn't count.

Iron Man was no slouch either. Has he been mentioned?

[oldjudge]

In 1932 Connie Mack picked his all time all star team. Unlike all of us, and most of the first HOF voters, Mack saw all these players play and had a basis for comparison. His outfield, as one might expect, was Ruth, Cobb and Speaker. His pitcher was Mathewson (not Johnson) and his catcher----Buck Ewing. I would suggest that Ewing should be added to this list. Interestingly, in 1937 on a radio show Mack again announced his choice for his all time team. This time he picked four pitchers and switched catchers to Cochrane. Below is a tape of the broadcast:


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=83YIV...%3D83YIVTvfKec

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by Jason

As far as what Babe Ruth would do in todays ballparks,Im sure the 295 foot short porch in right helped a bit with Ruth's Home Run Totals in Old Yankee Stadium.I would love to see a chart of his Home Runs compared from Right,Left,and Center.Just saying.

Started responding before I read everything you wrote...he hit many balls out to the deep parts as well, including many monstrous shots. Like many, I watched McGwire take BP in '98 and noted that his BP HR's looked and sounded different compared to the other star players. It was like he pictured the field the way a normal adult ballplayer would hitting on a little league field. Ruth was like that times 100, and players from other teams were some of his biggest fans. Guess they didn't use the porch....

Ruth was very generous to fans, especially children. He was raised in an unstable environment and was subsequently overwhelmed with love, so yeah, he partied and whatever anyone wanted him to do. He wanted people to like him, including the black players he played with for fun. It's amazing how badly people quickly overlook positive with Ruth and Cobb. They were the best and that's why negativity follows. Did Cobb like Ruth? If not, there was a reason.

Spray charts tomorrow

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

In 1932 Connie Mack picked his all time all star team. Unlike all of us, and most of the first HOF voters, Mack saw all these players play and had a basis for comparison. His outfield, as one might expect, was Ruth, Cobb and Speaker. His pitcher was Mathewson (not Johnson) and his catcher----Buck Ewing. I would suggest that Ewing should be added to this list.

Good catch, pun intended

[JollyElm]

The funny thing about threads like this is the fact it's all based on cold statistics and anecdotal evidence, not on first hand knowledge. I haven't scoured every post here, but I'm probably right in saying that no one on this board has ever seen any of these players play a single game (the exception, of course, is with people who may have seen either Dimaggio or Ted Williams play). Hell, it's even tough finding any video of these guys playing.

Herein lies the problem. For example, as a Mets fan, I watched countless times as Carlos Beltran didn't come through when the game was on the line. He is the exact opposite of a clutch player. However, if the Metties were losing 10-0, then Beltran would hit a homer. Woo hoo! So his stat line is there for everyone to see, but it hardly tells the 'true' story. I would rather have had virtually any other outfielder on the team than him, but if you only look at the numbers (RBI totals, etc.), he would be the 'right' choice.

If the people here were actually around watching these players on the field during the pre-war era, I guarantee their lists would change drastically from what they're putting down now.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

For example, as a Mets fan, I watched countless times as Carlos Beltran didn't come through when the game was on the line. He is the exact opposite of a clutch player. However, if the Metties were losing 10-0, then Beltran would hit a homer. Woo hoo!

I was OK with him last year. ~ Ken Wirt, Cardinal fan
Just joshing ya! Solid lists by all, especially Mike Mattsey's position-specific list (the only real way to list an all-star team, imo). And good to see some of the Negro Leaguers gettin' some love, particularly Martin Dihigo. Damn, I'm glad baseball's almost here!!!

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

The funny thing about threads like this is the fact it's all based on cold statistics and anecdotal evidence, not on first hand knowledge. I haven't scoured every post here, but I'm probably right in saying that no one on this board has ever seen any of these players play a single game (the exception, of course, is with people who may have seen either Dimaggio or Ted Williams play). Hell, it's even tough finding any video of these guys playing.

Herein lies the problem. For example, as a Mets fan, I watched countless times as Carlos Beltran didn't come through when the game was on the line. He is the exact opposite of a clutch player. However, if the Metties were losing 10-0, then Beltran would hit a homer. Woo hoo! So his stat line is there for everyone to see, but it hardly tells the 'true' story. I would rather have had virtually any other outfielder on the team than him, but if you only look at the numbers (RBI totals, etc.), he would be the 'right' choice.

If the people here were actually around watching these players on the field during the pre-war era, I guarantee their lists would change drastically from what they're putting down now.

Newspapers, yearly guides, etc answer many of those questions. It's similar to not attending games and instead just watching Sportcenter, I guess. You may be right about some, but I doubt the word drastically would fit.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

The funny thing about threads like this is the fact it's all based on cold statistics and anecdotal evidence, not on first hand knowledge. I haven't scoured every post here, but I'm probably right in saying that no one on this board has ever seen any of these players play a single game (the exception, of course, is with people who may have seen either Dimaggio or Ted Williams play). Hell, it's even tough finding any video of these guys playing.

Herein lies the problem. For example, as a Mets fan, I watched countless times as Carlos Beltran didn't come through when the game was on the line. He is the exact opposite of a clutch player. However, if the Metties were losing 10-0, then Beltran would hit a homer. Woo hoo! So his stat line is there for everyone to see, but it hardly tells the 'true' story. I would rather have had virtually any other outfielder on the team than him, but if you only look at the numbers (RBI totals, etc.), he would be the 'right' choice.

If the people here were actually around watching these players on the field during the pre-war era, I guarantee their lists would change drastically from what they're putting down now.

I have to politely disagree with a huge amount of what you say. I do give you some credence with the Beltran analogy. However, there is a reason these same players' names keep coming up. If we read or listen to books such as The Glory of Their Times, we hear contemporaies talking the the same players. Also, those who voted on a player for HOF status saw all the players. Hence, this is more than urban (Shocker) legend (sorry, couldn't resist). And then, combined with the stats, it's backed up. You can find this in many fields and occupations. You ask around long enough and ask enough people for a real expert, the same names keep popping up.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Paul S

I have to politely disagree with a huge amount of what you say. I do give you some credence with the Beltran analogy. However, there is a reason these same players' names keep coming up. If we read or listen to books such as The Glory of Their Times, we hear contemporaies talking the the same players. Also, those who voted on a player for HOF status saw all the players. Hence, this is more than urban (Shocker) legend (sorry, couldn't resist). And then, combined with the stats, it's backed up. You can find this in many fields and occupations. You ask around long enough and ask enough people for a real expert, the same names keep popping up.

I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I am not disagreeing with anyone's list of players and it's pretty obvious that people like Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, et al, would pop up across the board. There are reasons why they are all known as all time greats. I'm simply pointing out the fact that no one here has ever seen any of these players play the game, so the personal connection is non-existent. And that's a very important part of 'judging' contemporary major leaguers...like my hatred for Beltran.

[packs]

I see what you're saying. Someone could look at Pedro's career and think he put up solid but not outstanding numbers without seeing him play and realizing just how much better he was than anyone else.

[bbcard1]

In an effort to avoid the work I need to do tonight, here's my list....1900 through WW2...not too much though so I'll bet you'll find at least on glaring error.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Walter Johnson
3. Lou Gehrig
4. Ty Cobb
5. Honus Wagner
6. Christy Mathewson
7. Cy Young
8. Josh Gibson
9. Lefty Grove
10. Rogers Hornsby
11. Jimmy Foxx
12. Tris Speaker
13. Nap Lajoie
14. Grover Alexander
15. George Sisler
16. Satchell Paige
17. Bill Terry
18. Eddie Collins
19. Joe Jackson
20. Mel Ott
21. Paul Waner
22. Al Simmons
23. Frankie Frisch
24. Bill Terry
25. Harry Heilmann
26. Sam Crawford
27. Bill Dickey
28. Charlie Gehringer
29. Home Run Baker
30. Larry Doyle

[Sean]

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

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I am not disagreeing with anyone's list of players and it's pretty obvious that people like Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, et al, would pop up across the board. There are reasons why they are all known as all time greats. I'm simply pointing out the fact that no one here has ever seen any of these players play the game, so the personal connection is non-existent. And that's a very important part of 'judging' contemporary major leaguers...like my hatred for Beltran.

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.

[mannybb24]

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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

[Eric72]

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

[jerrys]

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

[yanksfan09]

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.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by yanksfan09

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...

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.



Best Regards,

Eric

[deadballfreaK]

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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by deadballfreaK

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.

[kcohen]

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.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by kcohen

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.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

There was a book where it says that Ruth under today's rules and ballparks would have hit 104 HRs in his 60 HR season.

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.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by deadballfreaK

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.

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

[Jlighter]

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.

[cyseymour]

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.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

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.

Jake,

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

Best,

Eric

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

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

[Eric72]

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

[cyseymour]

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.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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