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

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

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

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Eric72

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

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.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Eric72

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.

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.

[sycks22]

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.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by sycks22

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.... 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.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Johnson pitched for a far worse team and had a lower era / more shut outs / more k's / over 2,000 less hits allowed. .

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

[tiger8mush]

% 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.

[CMIZ5290]

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??

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

% 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.

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.