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

[RCMcKenzie]

Agree on Nichols. He is very high on the all-time WAR stat. I don't know all the metrics that go in to it, but it seems to churn out the right names. Eddie Collins and Alex Rodriguez are also high on the list, the other names are the ones most would guess.

[rats60]

When Babe Ruth faced the best Negro League pitcher Satchel Paige, he hit a 500 foot home run off him. Ruth would have dominated any competition. Josh Gibson on the other hand struck out on 3 pitches after Paige intentionally walked 2 guys to face Gibson. Ruth is easily the greatest hitter ever.

Bill James ranks Honus Wagner #2. Although Wagner wasn't the hitter that Ruth was, he was the best hitter in the NL from 1900-1912 and was a gold glove level fielder at the most difficult position, shortstop. James has Willie Mays at #3.

[tedzan]

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

Why is this poll limited to just the "Pre-War Era" ?

BABE RUTH is the greatest in Baseball in any era....19th Century, Pre-WWII, Post-WWII.

I believe in Divine Intervention.....George Herman Ruth was considered an "incorrigible" youngster; and, Brother Matthias at St. Mary’s
Industrial School straightened him out. And, introduced the young Ruth to Baseball and showed him how to play the game.

Then, when the game of Baseball was in serious trouble after the 1919 World Series, the Good Lord, in a dream, inspired Miller Huggins
to persuade Col. Jacob Ruppert (Yankees owner) to acquire Babe Ruth from Boston in December 1919.....and, the rest is history.



.


.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by rats60

When Babe Ruth faced the best Negro League pitcher Satchel Paige, he hit a 500 foot home run off him. Ruth would have dominated any competition. Josh Gibson on the other hand struck out on 3 pitches after Paige intentionally walked 2 guys to face Gibson. Ruth is easily the greatest hitter ever.

So you're condensing the careers of two guys who combined played for over 40 years into one at-bat each. That doesn't prove anything at all.

As I said, I haven't seen any unbiased studies proving that the Negro Leagues were equal to the major leagues. But it's clear that they were at least high minor league quality. Roy Campanella, Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Luke Easter, Monte Irvin, Larry Doby, Satchell Paige, and others all played in the Negro Leagues at the same time as Gibson.

Gibson led his league in home runs 11 times, and for his career had an OPS+ of 215. Bill James in his 1985 abstract estimates that a player moving from AAA to the majors would retain about 82% of their offensive production. I think the true number for the Negro Leagues would be between 82% and 100%. 90% seems reasonable to me. That would result in a career OPS+ of 194, four points higher than Ruth.

Part of this is just me being contrarian. I'm not certain of how good the Negro Leagues were, just having fun arguing.

[53toppscollector]

I think it is fruitless and unfair to try to compare baseball players from different eras, especially wildly different eras. Comparing guys from the 1800s, when they pitched from 45 or 50 feet away and players didnt wear gloves, to guys playing today, just seems unreasonable. Its like asking which mode of transportation is better, the wagon or a Porsche. When it was either take a horse/wagon or walk, the wagon seems like the best idea ever. But now, if I offered you either a wagon or a Porsche, you'd probably take the Porsche, if time was any kind of consideration.

The game of baseball was completely different in 1905 than what it is today. Mostly because humans are different and they have evolved, alongside technology. Babe Ruth is amazing, but did he ever actually face any lefthanded pitcher who threw what is accepted today as a slider? He wasn't facing lefties throwing 96-98 consistently with 88-91 mph sliders.

Equipment was different, the game was played differently, and players were not built like they are today. Matty was 6'1/195, WaJo was 6'1/200, they were two of the most dominant pitchers of their era, and by today's standards, they'd be undersized righties.

I understand that there are statistics like ERA+ and OPS+ that adjust for era, but I don't think they can truly adjust and allow for direct 1 to 1 comparisons. The mound was different, park dimensions were a lot different, and the players themselves were a lot different. I mean, there were no night games until 1935. I think its easy to compare WaJo and Matty and Plank and Cy Young to each other, or Wagner to Eddie Collins. I think its a lot harder, and pretty pointless, to compare Mike Trout to Ty Cobb.

Different games, different eras. Just my $0.02

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

I think it is fruitless and unfair to try to compare baseball players from different eras, especially wildly different eras. Comparing guys from the 1800s, when they pitched from 45 or 50 feet away and players didnt wear gloves, to guys playing today, just seems unreasonable. Its like asking which mode of transportation is better, the wagon or a Porsche. When it was either take a horse/wagon or walk, the wagon seems like the best idea ever. But now, if I offered you either a wagon or a Porsche, you'd probably take the Porsche, if time was any kind of consideration.

The game of baseball was completely different in 1905 than what it is today. Mostly because humans are different and they have evolved, alongside technology. Babe Ruth is amazing, but did he ever actually face any lefthanded pitcher who threw what is accepted today as a slider? He wasn't facing lefties throwing 96-98 consistently with 88-91 mph sliders.

Equipment was different, the game was played differently, and players were not built like they are today. Matty was 6'1/195, WaJo was 6'1/200, they were two of the most dominant pitchers of their era, and by today's standards, they'd be undersized righties.

I understand that there are statistics like ERA+ and OPS+ that adjust for era, but I don't think they can truly adjust and allow for direct 1 to 1 comparisons. The mound was different, park dimensions were a lot different, and the players themselves were a lot different. I mean, there were no night games until 1935. I think its easy to compare WaJo and Matty and Plank and Cy Young to each other, or Wagner to Eddie Collins. I think its a lot harder, and pretty pointless, to compare Mike Trout to Ty Cobb.

Different games, different eras. Just my $0.02

Generally speaking, I completely agree with this. Hence, the reason it was limited to Pre-War.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

I think it is fruitless and unfair to try to compare baseball players from different eras, especially wildly different eras. Comparing guys from the 1800s, when they pitched from 45 or 50 feet away and players didnt wear gloves, to guys playing today, just seems unreasonable. Its like asking which mode of transportation is better, the wagon or a Porsche. When it was either take a horse/wagon or walk, the wagon seems like the best idea ever. But now, if I offered you either a wagon or a Porsche, you'd probably take the Porsche, if time was any kind of consideration.

The game of baseball was completely different in 1905 than what it is today. Mostly because humans are different and they have evolved, alongside technology. Babe Ruth is amazing, but did he ever actually face any lefthanded pitcher who threw what is accepted today as a slider? He wasn't facing lefties throwing 96-98 consistently with 88-91 mph sliders.

Equipment was different, the game was played differently, and players were not built like they are today. Matty was 6'1/195, WaJo was 6'1/200, they were two of the most dominant pitchers of their era, and by today's standards, they'd be undersized righties.

I understand that there are statistics like ERA+ and OPS+ that adjust for era, but I don't think they can truly adjust and allow for direct 1 to 1 comparisons. The mound was different, park dimensions were a lot different, and the players themselves were a lot different. I mean, there were no night games until 1935. I think its easy to compare WaJo and Matty and Plank and Cy Young to each other, or Wagner to Eddie Collins. I think its a lot harder, and pretty pointless, to compare Mike Trout to Ty Cobb.

Different games, different eras. Just my $0.02

+1 Agree

But it is baseball and we always compare players and teams across different era in baseball
It is part of the Allure of baseball and the history of baseball that makes it fun but also endless debates.
WE all use different criteria, we use different stats, we use the same stats but use it differently.

[Touch'EmAll]

Cobb was actually a big dude. Had he come along later, developed different hitting style more tailored to the long ball, wonder how it would have worked out.

[BabyRuth]

I vote for the Babe, I may be a little biased.
Just love the pitching pose!!!

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

But it is baseball and we always compare players and teams across different era in baseball
It is part of the Allure of baseball and the history of baseball that makes it fun but also endless debates.
WE all use different criteria, we use different stats, we use the same stats but use it differently.

Exactly. This is what makes it fun. In this case, particularly the definition of "greatest."

My vote went to Ruth. I've read some good arguments for Wagner and Cobb but, in the end, to my mind they don't overshadow the case for Ruth. Maybe it's just how I think about greatness....

Sadly, we will never really know about the Negro League players. I'm not an expert, but I suspect that Oscar Charleston and Josh Gibson (and Martin Dihigo) would have excelled in the majors, not just survived there but been star players. There's really no way to know if either of them could have matched the babe, but since (to my mind) no one else in that era did, I think the inconclusive result should go in Ruth's favor.

Also, for what it's worth, with respect to NL players vs Satchel Paige for a few at bats, etc., I don't think we can draw much in the way of useful conclusions. There just isn't enough data. If we were able to make those extrapolations, then the greatest Pre-War player might be Eiji Sawamura....

[akleinb611]

Many, many, (MANY!) years ago, a college friend, who was an outstanding logician, answered this question thusly:

Babe Ruth was the greatest player who ever lived, because if someone asks you who the greatest player who ever lived was, and your answer ISN'T Babe Ruth, your first job is to explain why your answer isn't Babe Ruth.

I can't improve on that.

Alan

[rats60]

Originally Posted by John1941

So you're condensing the careers of two guys who combined played for over 40 years into one at-bat each. That doesn't prove anything at all.

As I said, I haven't seen any unbiased studies proving that the Negro Leagues were equal to the major leagues. But it's clear that they were at least high minor league quality. Roy Campanella, Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Luke Easter, Monte Irvin, Larry Doby, Satchell Paige, and others all played in the Negro Leagues at the same time as Gibson.

Gibson led his league in home runs 11 times, and for his career had an OPS+ of 215. Bill James in his 1985 abstract estimates that a player moving from AAA to the majors would retain about 82% of their offensive production. I think the true number for the Negro Leagues would be between 82% and 100%. 90% seems reasonable to me. That would result in a career OPS+ of 194, four points higher than Ruth.

Part of this is just me being contrarian. I'm not certain of how good the Negro Leagues were, just having fun arguing.

What were Josh Gibson's career stats vs. Satchel Paige? Paige was a major league talent. The best I could find he hit .000 against him. People like to throw out that prewar MLB stars weren't that great because they didn't play against Negro League stars. If those stars couldn't hit Paige, how would they have done against Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, ect?

I disagree with your assertions about the Negro Leagues. Only 8% of MLB today is African Americans. In 1960 when every team was integrated it was only 9%. Even a decade later it was less than 15%. It peaked at 18.7% in 1981. If the Negro Leagues were at the same level as MLB, that number would have approached 50%. Especially after expansion in 1961-62 and 1969. I believe the level of play was far below that of MLB and even AAA. The top level of players were of MLB quality but the vast majority were not.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by rats60

What were Josh Gibson's career stats vs. Satchel Paige? Paige was a major league talent. The best I could find he hit .000 against him. People like to throw out that prewar MLB stars weren't that great because they didn't play against Negro League stars. If those stars couldn't hit Paige, how would they have done against Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, ect?

I disagree with your assertions about the Negro Leagues. Only 8% of MLB today is African Americans. In 1960 when every team was integrated it was only 9%. Even a decade later it was less than 15%. It peaked at 18.7% in 1981. If the Negro Leagues were at the same level as MLB, that number would have approached 50%. Especially after expansion in 1961-62 and 1969. I believe the level of play was far below that of MLB and even AAA. The top level of players were of MLB quality but the vast majority were not.

Why would you expect a group that makes up 12% of the population to be 50% of the league?

[John1941]

Originally Posted by steve B

Why would you expect a group that makes up 12% of the population to be 50% of the league?

Also, not all Negro League players were actually American. Jose Mendez, Cristobal Torriente, Martin Dihigo and others were Cuban.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by steve B

Why would you expect a group that makes up 12% of the population to be 50% of the league?

For the same reason they make up over half of the NBA and the NFL, Olympic Track and Field, etc?