Top 30 Pre-WWII Players

[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

[cyseymour]

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.

[howard38]

/

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by howard38

I think I'd replace Joe Wood with Carl Hubbell. I don't know much about the 19th century guys though.

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.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by howard38

I think I'd replace Joe Wood with Carl Hubbell. I don't know much about the 19th century guys though.

Howard,

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

Best Regards,

Eric

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

Cy,

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

Best Regards,

Eric

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Cy,

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

Best Regards,

Eric

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.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

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

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...

[GaryPassamonte]

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.

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.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

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.

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

[bbcard1]

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.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

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.

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