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

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Now sir, I understand you've been around a while and your opinion carries more weight, and I do, in fact, respect your opinion. However, in this particular instance I think your senility has finally gotten the best of you! If anyone is overrated, it's Ruth not Cobb. I present the following evidence for Cobb:

Tris Speaker once said, "Babe was a great ballplayer, but Cobb was even greater.

The people who really knew baseball still favored Cobb, according even to Ruth's own manager, Miller Huggins.

First Hall of Fame Vote: Cobb received 222 out of a possible 226 votes. Ruth and Wagner each received 215 votes, Mathewson had 205 votes, and Johnson finished with 189.

"Make no mistake about that. The old boy was the greatest player I ever saw or hoped to see." - Babe Ruth

"I never saw anyone like Ty Cobb. No one even close to him. He was the greatest all time ballplayer. That guy was superhuman, amazing." - Casey Stengel

1961 - "Cobb was the greatest ball player of all time and will never be equaled. Most record books simply talk about his hitting and base stealing. But he was a great outfielder with a great arm." (immediately after Ty died in July,'61) - Rogers Hornsby

"I haven't had the chance to see many of the great stars of the other league, but picking the greatest player that ever lived is easy, I think. I pick Ty Cobb. I guess every one will do the same. Cobb was a good fielder, the greatest baserunner in the game's history, the fastest thinker and the most consistent hitter. How can you name any one else? Eddie Collins, the keystone of my great infield of the old Athletics, is my second choice. Eddie was a marvelous ball player. I can't say too much for him. I'll name Lajoie third. Of the present-day players I pick Al Simmons first, and he is my fourth man of all time. I hate to leave off Mickey Cochrane, but I must name Babe Ruth, so he goes fifth.
-Connie Mack

Cobb received another first-place vote from Walter Johnson. Johnson was lavish in his praise of the "Georgia Peach." He gave Wagner second place and
then named Jackson, Ruth and Collins.

In July,1931, C. William Duncan conducted survey of Phil. Public Ledger of who is the greatest all-time:

B. Shotten: Cobb, Lajoie, Klein, Wagner, Ruth, Cochrane
Mack: Cobb, Collins, Lajoie, Simmons, Ruth
K. Gleason: Cobb, Wagner
B. McKechnie: Wagner, Cobb, Speaker, Lajoie, Hornsby, Ruth
J. Burke: Wagner, Cobb, Lajoie, Collins, Hornsby
J. Mccarthy: Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Collins, Lajoie
Howley: Cobb, Wagner
W. Robinson: Cobb, Keeler, Ruth, Wagner, Ferguson
G. Street: Cobb, Wagner, Collins, F.Parent, Chase
B. Harris: Ruth, Cobb, Sisler, Simmons, Speaker
W. Johnson: Cobb, Wagner, Jackson, Ruth, Collins
McGraw: Wagner, Cobb, Keeler, Simmons, Terry

Now please stop with this Ruth madness. He was popular - very popular. Mythically popular. And that's great. He may have saved the sport of baseball after the Black Sox scandal. But listen to his contemporaries and please just stop this "Ruth is the Greatest" madness now!

Contemporaries are probably the worst people to use. Contemporaries are the people who stuffed the HOF with mediocre players. Hell LaRussa browbeat a committee into putting Harold Baines in. You act like contemporaries are somehow impartial arbiters when in fact they are the most prejudiced.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Contemporaries are probably the worst people to use. Contemporaries are the people who stuffed the HOF with mediocre players. Hell LaRussa browbeat a committee into putting Harold Baines in. You act like contemporaries are somehow impartial arbiters when in fact they are the most prejudiced.

By that logic.... no one can fairly judge anyone they witnessed play??
So you're saying that it's up to the people that DID NOT see the individual play to give the only fair and best opinion on ability? C'mon! Get real!
This must be the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread.
It's good that only NON-contemporary players always tell the complete truth with no biases Who knew???

This is the problem with these discussions... people take facts, and try to rationalize and marry them with self-serving opinions.
Making assumptions on how past players have commented to fit your own agenda and belief is no legitimate argument... ever.

As to your other point.... how good of a goaltender was Wayne Gretzky?
I guess he can't be the best hockey player of all-time

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

By that logic.... no one can fairly judge anyone they witnessed play??
So you're saying that it's up to the people that DID NOT see the individual play to give the only fair and best opinion on ability? C'mon! Get real!
This must be the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread.
It's good that only NON-contemporary players always tell the complete truth with no biases Who knew???

This is the problem with these discussions... people take facts, and try to rationalize and marry them with self-serving opinions.
Making assumptions on how past players have commented to fit your own agenda and belief is no legitimate argument... ever.

As to your other point.... how good of a goaltender was Wayne Gretzky?
I guess he can't be the best hockey player of all-time

It is very hard to take personal bias out of observation when there's no real reason to. The contemporaries have no reason to be unbiased therefore why would they be? Again these guys put players like Ted Lyons and Lloyd Waner in the HOF. Frankly I think players in general should not be counted on to give unbiased opinions. I would argue you need to go to the numbers for the unbiased truth.

You're other point is pretty poorly made because nobody has done what you're suggesting so it's irrelevant. If Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe or Mark Messier played 4 outstanding seasons at goalie then switched and become the studs they were as position players, then yes it would greatly impact my opinion of who the greatest hockey player of all time is. Since nobody has done that, let alone someone in the argument for all time greatest player, saying what you said about Gretzky is pretty specious. In baseball Ruth actually DID it so you have to take that into consideration.

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

You're other point is pretty poorly made because nobody has done what you're suggesting so it's irrelevant. If Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe or Mark Messier played 4 outstanding seasons at goalie then switched and become the studs they were as position players, then yes it would greatly impact my opinion of who the greatest hockey player of all time is. Since nobody has done that, let alone someone in the argument for all time greatest player, saying what you said about Gretzky is pretty specious. In baseball Ruth actually DID it so you have to take that into consideration.

It's such an interesting point, something we saw this season with Ohtani, as well, because pitchers in baseball can also hit.

Any of the hockey players mentioned would not only have had to be good/great goalies early in their career but also able to score in those same season for the argument to make sense.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Frankish

It's such an interesting point, something we saw this season with Ohtani, as well, because pitchers in baseball can also hit.

Any of the hockey players mentioned would not only have had to be good/great goalies early in their career but also able to score in those same season for the argument to make sense.

Well it's not apples to apples because unless you're Ron Hextall goalies don't really score. While a pitcher HAD to bat (and still does in one league)

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Well it's not apples to apples because unless you're Ron Hextall goalies don't really score. While a pitcher HAD to bat (and still does in one league)

Yes, exactly my point. It's a bad analogy.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Contemporaries are probably the worst people to use. Contemporaries are the people who stuffed the HOF with mediocre players. Hell LaRussa browbeat a committee into putting Harold Baines in. You act like contemporaries are somehow impartial arbiters when in fact they are the most prejudiced.

All due respect, but voting for who goes into the HOF is a bit different than ranking who one thinks is the all-time greatest pre-war player. All of the possible people on that list are already in the HOF, except Jackson, so there is really no advantage or additional prestige to be given the title of greatest of all.

The list of people who ranked who they thought were the greatest pre-war players, that was put up by an earlier poster from a 1931 poll, included some pretty prominent and well known baseball people, Mack, McKechnie, McCarthy, Harris, McGraw, and so on. I believe most of those polled were, or had been, managers/players at the time, and would thus be considered to have a pretty good eye for baseball talent and ability. And this was several years before the HOF even existed so there really isn't a lot of bias from that institution playing into their decisions. Also, these people didn't all play with or manage the players that repeatedly kept getting named on this all-time greatest list. Now I did see that Joe McCarthy, who had actually managed Ruth, put him down as the all-time greatest, Cobb second. Couldn't that have involved some bias/favoritism as well? Of the others polled, Bucky Harris was the only other one to put Ruth first, and he also listed Cobb second.

Of the twelve people polled, seven listed Cobb first, three listed Wagner first, and only two listed Ruth first, including his own manager. And of the ones that listed Cobb first, I don't believe any of them ever managed or played with him. The rumours and stories about Cobb being despised by many in baseball are just that, stories perpetuated by the likes of Al Stumph and even Ken Burns. Still, I fail to see how the rankings by this group from back in 1931 displays any type of favoritism or bias for Cobb.

But of the twelve different people polled, the one that intrigued me the most was Walter Johnson's rankings. Of all the people on that list, I believe Johnson is the only one to have actually pitched extensively to Ruth, Cobb, and Joe Jackson, all when they were in their primes. Don't believe Wagner and Johnson ever faced each other in an actual game as they were in different leagues during their playing careers. Still found it somewhat surprising that Johnson would then rank Cobb as #1, Wagner as #2, and then Joe Jackson as #3, before finally listing Ruth as #4 followed by Eddie Collins at #5. Scott, forgive me, but if arguably one of, if not, the greatest pre-war pitchers of all-time says he feels Cobb and Wagner were better than Ruth, I think you at least have to listen.