Top 30 Pre-WWII Players

[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...

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

[Touch'EmAll]

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.