Top 30 Pre-WWII Players

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by conor912

No way. I'm calling foul on this one. Babe didn't become the power hitter we know until after his pitching prime was over. He was never a force of both at any one time. You can't have it both ways.

Babe led his team in HR's during his pitching years and with far fewer AB's, I think. In any case, Cobb would have to be considered...that is by the second coach when it's his turn to pick

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Clutch-Hitter

Babe led his team in HR's during his pitching years and with far fewer AB's, I think. In any case, Cobb would have to be considered...that is by the second coach when it's his turn to pick

Cobb's best year was 1911, when he had a 1.088 OPS. Babe Ruth averaged a 1.164 OPS. That means that Cobb's best year ever would have been a subpar year for The Babe.

In other words, Cobb was nowhere nearly as good as Ruth, and in fact, if we were to count him, Ted Williams would come out ahead of Cobb as well. Then, if you were to consider that Cobb was a despicable human being, there is nothing great about that, either.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Cobb's best year was 1911, when he had a 1.088 OPS. Babe Ruth averaged a 1.164 OPS. That means that Cobb's best year ever would have been a subpar year for The Babe.

In other words, Cobb was nowhere nearly as good as Ruth, and in fact, if we were to count him, Ted Williams would come out ahead of Cobb as well. Then, if you were to consider that Cobb was a despicable human being, there is nothing great about that, either.

Fair enough, but 1) lets leave the morality debate for another time 2) Babe did the lions's share of his slugging after the dead ball era was over, whereas Cobb did his smack in the middle of it 3) at age 40 Cobb had 175 hits. By 40 Ruth had already drank and fried chickened himself out of the game. I'll take small ball production and stamina over power any day.

Let's just call it a managerial difference

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by conor912

Fair enough, but 1) lets leave the morality debate for another time 2) Babe did the lions's share of his slugging after the dead ball era was over, whereas Cobb did his smack in the middle of it 3) at age 40 Cobb had 175 hits. By 40 Ruth had already drank and fried chickened himself out of the game. I'll take small ball production and stamina over power any day.

Let's just call it a managerial difference

Those are good points, but even factoring in the league differences, plus the extra years Cobb played, Ruth still comes out ahead in WAR (160 to 144). But then Ruth also posted a 19.1 Pitching WAR, which gives him a total of 179. So Ruth outdistances Cobb by a pretty good margin.

Let me also say that Ruth had a World Series OPS of 1.211, while Cobb's was a miniscule .668. Talk about coming up small in the bigtime! If that's your definition of "small ball", then Cobb's a perfect fit.

[deadballfreaK]

I'm dividing mine into hitters and pitchers.
1. Babe Ruth- he was both.
2. Honus Wagner
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Ty Cobb
2,3,4 very close. I could flip flop
5. Eddie Collins
6. Tris Speaker
7. Lou Gehrig
8. Nap Lajoie
9. Joe Jackson- he would have hammered the ball for another 5 years
10. Jimmy Foxx
11. Arky Vaughan-way underrated
12. George Davis- ditto
13. Mickey Cochrane
14. Bill Dickey- Gotta get catchers in there somewhere They don't always show their value in stats. Cochrane and Dickey were pretty close. I could take either.
15. Frank Frisch
16. Bobby Wallace
17. Cap Anson
18. Joe Cronin
19. Ed Delahanty
20. 50 guys could take this spot.

Pitchers
1. Walter Johnson
2. Cy Young
3. Pete Alexander
4. Christy Mathewson
5. Lefty Grove
6. Kid Nichols
7. Carl Hubbell
8. Dazzy Vance
9. Addie Joss
10. Mordecai Brown

Probably left out out some greats and will have to edit

[Shoele$$]

IMO I think a more fair way to rank players is Dead Ball Era and Pre WWII Live Ball era. Too many things changed after 1920 in favor of the batters, hence the obvious sudden explosion in home runs.

Dead Ball Era Batters:
1.) Ty Cobb
2.) Honus Wagner
3.) Joe Jackson
4.) Tris Speaker
5.) Nap Lajoie
6.) Eddie Collins
7.) Sam Crawford
8.) Zack Wheat
9.) Willie Keeler
10.) Home Run Baker

Dead Ball Pitchers:
1.) Walter Johnson
2.) Christy Mathewson
3.) Eddie Plank
4.) Grover Alexander
5.) Cy Young
6.) Mordecai Brown
7.) Ed Walsh
8.) Chief Bender
9.) Rube Waddell
10.) Addie Joss

[Sean]

This is a great topic. It reminds me of how I used to argue with my father about the merits of Cobb (his choice) and Ruth. He passed away four years ago, so I'll have to argue with some of you instead.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Honus Wagner
3. Ty Cobb (I've read many articles and never saw anyone praise his defense).
4. Walter Johnson
5. Oscar Charleston (Buck O'Neil told me he was the best he ever saw).
6. Lou Gehrig
7. Lefty Grove
8. Josh Gibson
9. Joe Dimaggio (his best years were all pre-WWII).
10. Jimmie Foxx
11. Christy Mathewson
12. Tris Speaker
13. Eddie Collins
14. John Henry Lloyd
15. Cy Young
16. Rogers Hornsby
17. Napoleon Lajoie
18. Grover Cleveland Alexander
19. Ed Delahanty
20. Satchell Paige
21. Mickey Cochrane
22. Arky Vaughn
23. Kid Nichols
24. Shoeless Joe Jackson
25. Sam Crawford
26. Carl Hubbell
27. Dizzy Dean
28. Zack Wheat
29. Mordecai Brown
30. Mike Donlin (Sentimental pick. He's my favorite T206 player. I always like drunken Irishmen).

[conor912]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Those are good points, but even factoring in the league differences, plus the extra years Cobb played, Ruth still comes out ahead in WAR (160 to 144). But then Ruth also posted a 19.1 Pitching WAR, which gives him a total of 179. So Ruth outdistances Cobb by a pretty good margin.

Let me also say that Ruth had a World Series OPS of 1.211, while Cobb's was a miniscule .668. Talk about coming up small in the bigtime! If that's your definition of "small ball", then Cobb's a perfect fit.

Again, different eras so I still feel like were comparing apples to oranges, but I will indulge your WS point. Look at the guys who batted around Ruth in the order and those who batted around Cobb. It takes a whole team to win. Look at all those other HOFers on the Yankees! Had Ruth been the only superstar on his team like Cobb was, he never would have seen one pitch to hit.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Eras don't matter if the players' accomplishments are compared to each players' individual performances throughout the league(s) in each respective year(s). For example, Ruth's 1921 season - who was close and how much was the difference? Cobb's best season - same question....The same can be done for an entire decade or career.

[mattsey9]

Originally Posted by conor912

Again, different eras so I still feel like were comparing apples to oranges, but I will indulge your WS point. Look at the guys who batted around Ruth in the order and those who batted around Cobb. It takes a whole team to win. Look at all those other HOFers on the Yankees! Had Ruth been the only superstar on his team like Cobb was, he never would have seen one pitch to hit.

Sam Crawford and Harry Heilmann say hello! There wasn't a team full of them like some of the great Yankees clubs, but Cobb wasn't on an island.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by mattsey9

Sam Crawford and Harry Heilmann say hello! There wasn't a team full of them like some of the great Yankees clubs, but Cobb wasn't on an island.

You got my point.

Nice list, btw. I'd make a couple personal preference changes but but theres nothing to argue with there (except your #1 )

[MMarvelli]

Originally Posted by conor912

Again, different eras so I still feel like were comparing apples to oranges, but I will indulge your WS point. Look at the guys who batted around Ruth in the order and those who batted around Cobb. It takes a whole team to win. Look at all those other HOFers on the Yankees! Had Ruth been the only superstar on his team like Cobb was, he never would have seen one pitch to hit.

It seems to me that is faulty logic. A player is judged on what he actually did, not what he could have done if things were different. In that case a player like Ernie Banks should be in the top 5 of the post war 30 because he would have been outstanding if he switched places with Mantle. Cobb was on a team and his stats were his stats to live with. Ruth was on a team and his stats and impact were his to live with. That is the luck of the draw.

Ruth saved the game after the Black Sox scandal put baseball in a tailspin. Ruth took the game to a higher level that is still the model for today. If the argument then reverts to the fact that Ruth did not play with a dead ball, I would agree. Cobb didn't change the game he just played it. Dead ball sucks for Cobb!

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by conor912

Again, different eras so I still feel like were comparing apples to oranges, but I will indulge your WS point. Look at the guys who batted around Ruth in the order and those who batted around Cobb. It takes a whole team to win. Look at all those other HOFers on the Yankees! Had Ruth been the only superstar on his team like Cobb was, he never would have seen one pitch to hit.

So the fact that Ruth had Gehrig behind him makes up for a 543 point difference in World Series OPS?

[packs]

In 1923 Ruth just missed winning the Triple Crown despite batting 393 and won his only MVP award. He then hit 368 in the World Series including 3 home runs. Bob Meusel batted behind Ruth that year and in that series. Bob Meusel had 9 home runs that year.

Ruth was a beast. It didn't matter who hit in front of him or behind him. He didn't need Gehrig, though who would complain.

[cyseymour]

Butch Wynegar career OPS .695
Ty Cobb World Series OPS .668

[digdugdig]

Another way to look at this...like putting together a fantasy league team...all time.
Who would be YOUR #1 pick, etc.
Are ya gonna go with the old addage "good pitching stops good hitting" or the eveyday position player??
A little different twist on this subject.