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

[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??

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by 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??

FWIW, the all-time WAR list ranks Baker here....

153 Andruw Jones
154 Frank Baker
155 David Cone
156 Joe Jackson

[packs]

I don't see how anyone could not answer Babe Ruth. It doesn't matter how the sports writers voted. There has only been one player in the history of the game to single handedly outhit an entire league. That player is Babe Ruth.

As talented and great as Cobb was, he didn't change the game. He only did things better than the players around him.

But Ruth did change the game, and every player after him has been trying to live up to what he did.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't see how anyone could not answer Babe Ruth. It doesn't matter how the sports writers voted. There has only been one player in the history of the game to single handedly outhit an entire league. That player is Babe Ruth.

As talented and great as Cobb was, he didn't change the game. He only did things better than the players around him.

But Ruth did change the game, and every player after him has been trying to live up to what he did.

The question wasn't who most transformed baseball.... It was who was the greatest pre-war player. You said it yourself, Cobb did things better than the players around him. Isnt that the definition of "best"?

More than most on the list, Ruth benefited from the end of the dead ball era.

Considering that Wagner and Cobb played most of thier career when conditions were harder for batters and they have greater all around stats/skills... Cobb and Wagner are clearly ahead of Cobb. I know the modern romanticism is all about Ruth...but that doesn't make him the best.

For me, the list goes Cobb, Wagner then Ruth.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by 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??

Hi Kevin,

I understand why he may seem out of place. As for answering your question, please see the posts below.

Best Regards,

Eric

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.

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.

[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.

[howard38]

/

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by howard38

For much of Ruth's prime there either was no MVP awarded or a player was no longer eligible after having won it once. During his career there was no award until 1922 and after he won in 1923 he was no longer eligible until the rules were changed in the early thirties.

Point taken, I didn't know that. I still maintain my stance that there was possibly an "old school small ball/purist" element present in that first writers vote.

Adding: especially given every writer over age 35 probably spent their formative years following, even idolizing players of the dead ball era. I know I met the mid-90's with a lot of hesitancy because the game seemed to change over night

[howard38]

/

[HOF Auto Rookies]

As to think who you guys think is the better player. Please don't take the time to look up the stats to find who is who, just look at make your decision.

Player A: Games: 3298, PA: 13941, AB: 12364, Avg: .305, OBP: 374, SLG: .555, OPS: .928, Runs: 2174, Hits: 3771, 2B: 624, 3B: 98, RBI’s: 2297, SB: 240, SO: 1383

Player B: Games: 2986, PA: 12606, AB: 9847, Avg: 298, OBP: .444, SLG: .607, OPS: 1.051, Runs: 2227, Hits: 2935, 2B: 601, 3B: 77, RBI’s: 1996, SB: 514, SO: 1539

Player C: Games: 2509, PA: 10622, AB: 8399, Avg: .342, OBP: .474, SLG: .690, OPS: 1.164, Runs: 2174, Hits: 2873, 2B: 506, 3B: 136, RBI’s: 2220, BB: 2062, SO: 1330

Player D: Games: 2992, PA: 12496, AB: 10881, Avg: .302, OBP: .384, SLG: .557, OPS: .941, Runs: 2062, Hits: 3283, 2B: 523, 3B: 140, RBI’s: 1903, SB: 338, SO: 1526

[CMIZ5290]

Where is Mantle?

[packs]

I would think Player C is the best of the group.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

As to think who you guys think is the better player. Please don't take the time to look up the stats to find who is who, just look at make your decision.

Player A: Games: 3298, PA: 13941, AB: 12364, Avg: .305, OBP: 374, SLG: .555, OPS: .928, Runs: 2174, Hits: 3771, 2B: 624, 3B: 98, RBI’s: 2297, SB: 240, SO: 1383

Player B: Games: 2986, PA: 12606, AB: 9847, Avg: 298, OBP: .444, SLG: .607, OPS: 1.051, Runs: 2227, Hits: 2935, 2B: 601, 3B: 77, RBI’s: 1996, SB: 514, SO: 1539

Player C: Games: 2509, PA: 10622, AB: 8399, Avg: .342, OBP: .474, SLG: .690, OPS: 1.164, Runs: 2174, Hits: 2873, 2B: 506, 3B: 136, RBI’s: 2220, BB: 2062, SO: 1330

Player D: Games: 2992, PA: 12496, AB: 10881, Avg: .302, OBP: .384, SLG: .557, OPS: .941, Runs: 2062, Hits: 3283, 2B: 523, 3B: 140, RBI’s: 1903, SB: 338, SO: 1526

Player C is by far the best.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

As to think who you guys think is the better player. Please don't take the time to look up the stats to find who is who, just look at make your decision.

Player A: Games: 3298, PA: 13941, AB: 12364, Avg: .305, OBP: 374, SLG: .555, OPS: .928, Runs: 2174, Hits: 3771, 2B: 624, 3B: 98, RBI’s: 2297, SB: 240, SO: 1383

Player B: Games: 2986, PA: 12606, AB: 9847, Avg: 298, OBP: .444, SLG: .607, OPS: 1.051, Runs: 2227, Hits: 2935, 2B: 601, 3B: 77, RBI’s: 1996, SB: 514, SO: 1539

Player C: Games: 2509, PA: 10622, AB: 8399, Avg: .342, OBP: .474, SLG: .690, OPS: 1.164, Runs: 2174, Hits: 2873, 2B: 506, 3B: 136, RBI’s: 2220, BB: 2062, SO: 1330

Player D: Games: 2992, PA: 12496, AB: 10881, Avg: .302, OBP: .384, SLG: .557, OPS: .941, Runs: 2062, Hits: 3283, 2B: 523, 3B: 140, RBI’s: 1903, SB: 338, SO: 1526

So it isn't allowed to be a career pitcher?

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

As to think who you guys think is the better player. Please don't take the time to look up the stats to find who is who, just look at make your decision.

Player A: Games: 3298, PA: 13941, AB: 12364, Avg: .305, OBP: 374, SLG: .555, OPS: .928, Runs: 2174, Hits: 3771, 2B: 624, 3B: 98, RBI’s: 2297, SB: 240, SO: 1383

Player B: Games: 2986, PA: 12606, AB: 9847, Avg: 298, OBP: .444, SLG: .607, OPS: 1.051, Runs: 2227, Hits: 2935, 2B: 601, 3B: 77, RBI’s: 1996, SB: 514, SO: 1539

Player C: Games: 2509, PA: 10622, AB: 8399, Avg: .342, OBP: .474, SLG: .690, OPS: 1.164, Runs: 2174, Hits: 2873, 2B: 506, 3B: 136, RBI’s: 2220, BB: 2062, SO: 1330

Player D: Games: 2992, PA: 12496, AB: 10881, Avg: .302, OBP: .384, SLG: .557, OPS: .941, Runs: 2062, Hits: 3283, 2B: 523, 3B: 140, RBI’s: 1903, SB: 338, SO: 1526

From a purely staistical perspective, rergarding offense, I would take Player C.

Without fielding stats, though, Player D might not be represented fairly.

Both of them changed the game. One made previously unthinkable hitting a reality. The other made previously unthinkable fielding a reality...and, when adding 660 HR to the stats provided for Player D, he's certainly no slouch.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

As to think who you guys think is the better player. Please don't take the time to look up the stats to find who is who, just look at make your decision.

Player A: Games: 3298, PA: 13941, AB: 12364, Avg: .305, OBP: 374, SLG: .555, OPS: .928, Runs: 2174, Hits: 3771, 2B: 624, 3B: 98, RBI’s: 2297, SB: 240, SO: 1383

Player B: Games: 2986, PA: 12606, AB: 9847, Avg: 298, OBP: .444, SLG: .607, OPS: 1.051, Runs: 2227, Hits: 2935, 2B: 601, 3B: 77, RBI’s: 1996, SB: 514, SO: 1539

Player C: Games: 2509, PA: 10622, AB: 8399, Avg: .342, OBP: .474, SLG: .690, OPS: 1.164, Runs: 2174, Hits: 2873, 2B: 506, 3B: 136, RBI’s: 2220, BB: 2062, SO: 1330

Player D: Games: 2992, PA: 12496, AB: 10881, Avg: .302, OBP: .384, SLG: .557, OPS: .941, Runs: 2062, Hits: 3283, 2B: 523, 3B: 140, RBI’s: 1903, SB: 338, SO: 1526

You put player C's walks where you put the other players' stolen bases.

Player A does have a better average of getting the ball in play with a SO every 10 PA and every 9AB. Whereas player C had the worse SO ratio to PA and ABs. So it really depends on what you consider makes someone a better player at the plate. Since RBIs and Runs has a lot to do with who batted in front and behind the player and Average can do a lot with how good the corresponding defense was then the one thing that is dependent on the batter is getting the ball in play I would say player A had the advantage. Also player A has the longer career stamina having played nearly 306 more games then the next longest career. So even though the straight forward stat of career OPS and AVG wouldn't show it, digging deeper into the career stats I would say player A as the advantage.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

As to think who you guys think is the better player. Please don't take the time to look up the stats to find who is who, just look at make your decision.

Player A: Games: 3298, PA: 13941, AB: 12364, Avg: .305, OBP: 374, SLG: .555, OPS: .928, Runs: 2174, Hits: 3771, 2B: 624, 3B: 98, RBI’s: 2297, SB: 240, SO: 1383

Player B: Games: 2986, PA: 12606, AB: 9847, Avg: 298, OBP: .444, SLG: .607, OPS: 1.051, Runs: 2227, Hits: 2935, 2B: 601, 3B: 77, RBI’s: 1996, SB: 514, SO: 1539

Player C: Games: 2509, PA: 10622, AB: 8399, Avg: .342, OBP: .474, SLG: .690, OPS: 1.164, Runs: 2174, Hits: 2873, 2B: 506, 3B: 136, RBI’s: 2220, BB: 2062, SO: 1330

Player D: Games: 2992, PA: 12496, AB: 10881, Avg: .302, OBP: .384, SLG: .557, OPS: .941, Runs: 2062, Hits: 3283, 2B: 523, 3B: 140, RBI’s: 1903, SB: 338, SO: 1526

I appreicate the want for anonymity but I could identify those stat lines from a mile away. Thanks for sticking the unpopular guy in there. He's gotten some mention so far, but not much. It'll be really interesting to see if he ever gets anywhere near the sort of credit that stat line would normally garner... My thought is "no".

[Tanman7baseball]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

As to think who you guys think is the better player. Please don't take the time to look up the stats to find who is who, just look at make your decision.

Player A: Games: 3298, PA: 13941, AB: 12364, Avg: .305, OBP: 374, SLG: .555, OPS: .928, Runs: 2174, Hits: 3771, 2B: 624, 3B: 98, RBI’s: 2297, SB: 240, SO: 1383

Player B: Games: 2986, PA: 12606, AB: 9847, Avg: 298, OBP: .444, SLG: .607, OPS: 1.051, Runs: 2227, Hits: 2935, 2B: 601, 3B: 77, RBI’s: 1996, SB: 514, SO: 1539

Player C: Games: 2509, PA: 10622, AB: 8399, Avg: .342, OBP: .474, SLG: .690, OPS: 1.164, Runs: 2174, Hits: 2873, 2B: 506, 3B: 136, RBI’s: 2220, BB: 2062, SO: 1330

Player D: Games: 2992, PA: 12496, AB: 10881, Avg: .302, OBP: .384, SLG: .557, OPS: .941, Runs: 2062, Hits: 3283, 2B: 523, 3B: 140, RBI’s: 1903, SB: 338, SO: 1526

The stats are a main factor obviously but what about how the player affected his fellow teammates? I think when people soley look at stats they seem to neglect the intangibles. Im talking about players who were not only good but also made the players around them better. True leaders. A real "spark-plug" if you will. One guy who exemplifies such traits and is surprisingly not on the list is Tris Speaker. I mean what's up with that??? yes I know he was involved in gambling... Still think he was a great leader as from what I remember from reading.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

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.

This is probably true. Back then the writers also didn't put too much weight into vote percentages and first ballots.