Bonds aside, what do you guys think of the SBAR list (first post under Bonds thread)?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

To me, there're some mighty strange things--mostly LEFT OFF--but also on it. I guess I've decided these guys probably know what they're talking about positively, but not not negatively. Exactly 2 19th century pitchers, and one number 102. Anyway, I still collect 19th century players, reverently, and I also spent 2 hours this morning fishing out a Bagwell, a kevin Brown (what IS his rookie card? The only one I could find that I own was a 1989 Upper Deck), a Frank Thomas--and I don't have a Piazza--or a Hartnett or a Heilmann.
I figure these guys spend most of their spare time studying baseball, so they must know something about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I recently read a 1914 article by Clark Griffith, who played with the "OJ era" players and later managed - he compared the greatest of the 1800's that he had seen, to the best players of the 1900's and in most cases the "OJ era" players fell short in his opinion. If anyone is interested in the article, I will photocopy and mail it to you. He breaks it down by position, so it's quite fascinating.

[Archive]

Posted By: GlenV

Is Paul Molitor the most unrecognized player of recent times. 8th in hits (3300+), 39 game hit streak, 500+ stolen bases, World Series MVP. There are better players, but it seems like he should make it in the top 100.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Connie Mack was quoted as saying that the greatest catcher he ever saw was Buck Ewing. As a catcher and one who had seen alot of baseball that was quite a compliment. However, as we all know it is difficult to compare players across eras. Also, one has to realize that baseball was still in its infancy in the Old Judge era. As the sport grew in popularity and the economic incentive to play in the "major" leagues as opposed to other leagues grew the talent crop should have improved and the players, on average, should have been better. That should in no way diminish the accomplishments of any pre-1900 player.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

It's also interesting to note that in the early days of baseball, catchers' were not expected to be great hitters. Much more of a premium was placed on defensive skills.

Griffith: "I have never seen a catcher the equal of "Buck" Ewing. I call him the best ball player in the world...Ewing was a wonder. He was a great thrower, not as fast, perhaps, as Archer, the star of to-day, but marvelously accurate. He was the man who invented most of the tricks that modern catchers use."

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I've read a number of quotes from different players from the OJ era that say Ewing was the player of that era.

In regards to someone else's comment;
Even as basbeall matured after the turn of the century, many good, possibly great, players never played in the majors becuase several of the 'minor' leagues payed as well or better than the majors. Most notably the PCL. Many players from the PCL never went to the majors becuase they did not want to take a pay cut and/or leave their families. So there were still a large number of outstanding players that were not in the majors.

I have heard some good arguments that the PCL was basically a third major league for most of the first half of the 20th century.

Jay