Top 30 Pre-WWII Players

[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 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?

[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.

[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.