Honus Wagner Thread [Archive]

Bill Burgess

12-21-2003, 03:40 PM

I date all my baseball photos using the following book. (Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century: The Official ML BB Guide, Researched, Illustrated & Written by Marc Okkonen, 1991, 1993)

Also, the following website, hostd by the Hall of Fame, mainly using the same book above, but also using images after 1993, has assisted me in dating some of the photos. http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/database.htm#database

On this photographic gallery, I have attempted, using the book above, to date all the photos. If I caption a photo with the following, John Smith, Cubs OF, 1910-13, that means that the photo was taken sometime between 1910-13, when the player was on the Cubs. It does NOT mean that the player was only on the Cubs in that time frame. He might have been on the Cubs from 1900-18, but the photo was only taken between 1910-13.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you enjoy this photo gallery, you might also like our other ones, too.

Historical, Archival Photographs (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=40306)---Pre-1900 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41332)---Negro L. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41331)---Vintage Panoramic Pictures (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=75607)---Brooklyn Dodgers (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41860)---Members' Gallery (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=40925)---Runningshoes Presents: Photo Op (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=46723)---Meet The Sports Writers (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57538)

Photos of the following individual players---Hank Aaron (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58318)---Pete Alexander (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=54211)---Ty Cobb (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80626&page=9)---Eddie Collins (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=54920)---Sam Crawford (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=71637)---Jimmy Foxx (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=55628)---Lou Gehrig (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=54351)---Rickey Henderson (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=54995)---Rogers Hornsby (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=56377)---Joe Jackson (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1305036&highlight=Greenville#post1305036)---Walter Johnson (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=54344)---Nap Lajoie (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72124)---Connie Mack (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=59240)---John McGraw (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=68164)---Mickey Mantle (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=67997)---Christy Mathewson (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=33507)---Willie Mays (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=54723)---Babe Ruth (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=21998&page=7)---George Sisler (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=960330#post960330)---Tris Speaker (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=38504)---Pie Traynor (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=37345)---Rube Waddell (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=308179#post308179)--- Honus Wagner (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=13366)---Ted Williams (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58624)---Zack Wheat (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=682455#post682455)---Rare Ty Cobb (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=73847) ---Rare Babe Ruth (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=73654)---Bill's Babe Ruth (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80285)---Rare Ted Williams (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1296657#post1296657)---Bill's Rare Finds (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=75602) ---Babefan's Fantastic Vintage Baseball photos (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=93482)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Guys,

While we all still agree that Honus Wagner is still the Greatest SS Ever, and may never be supplanted, how close is A-Rod? Is A-Rod pulling on Honus as the Greatest Ever SS?

My question is how close on his heels is A-Rod, and what are his chances of someday becoming the greatest SS ever? Or do some of you perhaps already feel that he's already ready to assume the crown?

But please also address if A-Rod's current price tag of $25M per, is worth the investment, or could we perhaps get Vladimir Guerrero & Icharo both for that kind of money?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honus' Relative Stats:

----Relative BA-----Rel.Slg.-----Rel.onbase-----Rel.ISO----------OPS+
----123.1 (16th)---132.9 (34th)---117.6 (48th)---170.9 (44th)------150 (t 31st)

Home/Away------BA----Slg.----onbase---HR-----D----T-----RBI------AB------BB
Home:---------.335---480-----.378------43---316---146----???-----5,087----???
Away:---------.320---.452-----.355------58---324---106----???-----5,352---???

Hitting Stats:

Wagner, Cobb, Hornsby, Ruth, Gehrig, T. Williams, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, DiMaggio, Speaker, Lajoie, Musial, Collins, Crawford, J. Jackson, Wheat, Roush, Foxx, Clemente, Schmidt, Yaz, Anson, Bonds, B. Williams, Kiner, Killebrew, Rose, Gwynn, Kaline, Greenberg, Waner, R. Jackson, Boggs, Gehringer, Brouthers, Delahanty, Simmons, Mize, Brett, F. Robinson, Ashburn, Sisler, Snider, Banks, Molitor, Keeler, Bench, Terry, Henderson.

Wagner-------BA--Hits-2B---3B---HR---R--RBI--TB--OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league----8---2----7----3----0---2---5----7---4----6----5---0--6
2nd league----2---2----1----3----1---2---2----1---1----3----0---0--2
3rd-----------0---5----3----2----0---2---2----4---2----2----2---0--2
4th-----------2---3----0----0----1---2---3----2---1----1----0---1--1
5th-----------1---1----1----0----2---1---1----2---2----0----0---0--0
6th-----------1---0----0----1----2---0---1----0---0----1----0---1--0

Cobb--------BA--Hits-2B---3B---HR---R--RBI-TB---OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league--12---8----3----4----1---5---4---6----7----8----6---0--11
2nd-league---3---3----4----4----2---2---2---2----7----3----1---1---3
3rd----------1---3----4----2----2---2---1---2----0----3----2---0---1
4th----------2---0----0----1----0---1---0---1----0----1----3---1---1
5th----------1---0----0----1----0---2---1---0----1----0----0---1---0
6th----------2---0----2----0----0---0---0---0----0----0----0---0---0

Hornsby-----BA---Hits-2B---3B--HR----R--RBI--TB---OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league---8----4----4----2---2----5---4----7----9----9----0---3--12
2nd league---2----1----1----1---2----1---1----2----1----1----0---1---1
3rd----------1----1----1----1---3----0---2----0----1----1----0---0---0
4th----------1----3----4----0---1----2---0----0----0----1----0---2---0
5th----------0----0----0----0---5----0---0----0----0----1----0---0---0
6th----------0----0----0----1---1----0---1----1----1----0----0---2---1

Ruth---------BA---Hits-2B---3B---HR---R--RBI--TB---OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league----1----0----1----0---12---8---6----6----9---13----0--11--13
2nd league----2----0----1----0----2---1---2--- 3----2----1----0---1---1
3rd-----------2----0----1----0----1---0---0----2----1----1----0---1---2
4th-----------1----3----0----0----0---0---3----0----2----0----0---0---0
5th-----------1----0----0----0----0---1---0----0----0----0----0---0---0
6th-----------0----2----1----1----0---1---1----0----0----0----0---0---0

Gehrig------BA---Hits-2B---3B---HR--Runs--RBI--TB---OBA-SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
Led league---1----1----1----4----2----4----4----2----4----2---0---3--3
2nd league---2----3----0----0----4----2----4----3----2----4---0---2--6
3rd----------3----0----0----1----3----3----2----2----3----1---0---3--3
4th----------0----1----0----0----1----2----2----0----0----3---0---0--0
5th----------2----1----0----0----1----0----0----1----1----0---0---0--0
6th----------1----0----1----0----1----0----0----1----0----0---0---1--0

Ted Williams--BA---Hits-2B--3B--HR--Runs-RBI--TB--OBA--SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
Led league-----6----0----2---0---4---6----4----6---12---8---0---8--9
2nd in league--2----1----2---0---4---1----2----0----0---1---0---1--1
3rd------------1----2----0---0---2---1----1----4----0---1---0---2--3
4th------------1----1----2---0---0---1----1----0----0---2---0---0--0
5th------------0----4----0---0---0---0----1----0----0---0---0---1--0
6th------------0----0----0---0---3---0----0----0----1---0---0---1--0

Mickey Mantle--BA---Hits-2B--3B--HR---Runs-RBI--TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
Led league------1----1----0---1---4----6----1----3---3---4---0---5--8
2nd in league---1----0----1---0---3----2----3----4---5---0---0---3--3
3rd-------------1----0----0---0---2----1----1----2---1---2---0---2--1
4th-------------2----2----0---1---0----0----0----1---2---0---2---0--0
5th-------------0----0----0---0---1----0----2----0---0---0---0---0--0
6th-------------0----0----0---1---0----1----3----0---1---1---0---1--0

Willie Mays----BA---Hits-2B--3B---HR--Runs-RBI--TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
Led league------1----1----0---3----4---2----0----3---2---5---4---1--6
2nd in league---3----1----1---1----1---5----2----5---1---3---0---1--1
3rd-------------2----1----1---1----3---3----3----5---2---2---0---2--5
4th-------------0----0----0---0----1---0----2----1---1---2---1---1--2
5th-------------1----1----0---0----2---0----1----1---5---4---0---1--0
6th-------------1----2----2---0----2---2----2----0---1---0---0---3--1

Hank Aaron----BA--Hits-2B--3B--HR---Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
Led league-----2---2----4---0---4----3----4---8---0---4---0---0--3
2nd in league--0---3----2---2---4----1----0---2---2---5---1---1--4
3rd------------0---1----1---0---1----4----2---2---3---4---0---2--4
4th------------3---0----1---2---2----2----2---2---1---1---2---2--1
5th------------4---0----0---0---2----1----1---0---2---1---0---0--1
6th------------0---3----1---0---2----1----1---1---1---2---2---0--2

Joe DiMaggio---BA--Hits-2B--3B--HR--Runs-RBI--TB--OBA--SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
Led league------2---0----0---1---2---1----2----3---0----2---0---0--1
2nd in league---0---1----1---0---0---2----3----2---0----5---0---0--4
3rd-------------2---1----0---4---1---0----3----1---2----0---0---0--2
4th-------------0---2----1---0---5---0----1----1---3----0---0---0--0
5th-------------0---0----0---0---2---2----1----2---0----0---0---0--1
6th-------------0---1----1---0---1---1----1----0---0----1---0---0--0

Tris Speaker--BA--Hits-2B--3B--HR--Runs-RBI--TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
Led league-----1---2----8---0---1---0----0----1---4---1---0---0--1
2nd in league--2---1----3---1---2---4----1----3---3---2---0---1--4
3rd------------7---2----1---1---0---2----1----2---4---4---1---0--5
4th------------2---4----0---0---2---2----2----3---3---4---1---4--3
5th------------1---2----0---0---0---0----0----1---1---2---3---2--3
6th------------1---0----1---1---0---2----0----0---0---1---1---3--0

Nap Lajoie---BA--Hits-2B--3B--HR--Runs--RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
Led league----3---4----5---0---1----1----3---4---2---4---0---0--3
2nd in league-3---0----4---1---0----1----1---2---2---3---0---0--3
3rd-----------1---1----1---0---1----0----2---0---1---2---0---0--0
4th-----------1---1----1---0---0----1----1---2---1---0---0---0--1
5th-----------0---1----0---0---0----0----1---0---1---0---0---0--0
6th-----------3---1----0---0---2----0----1---0---0---2---1---0--4

Stan Musial-BA--Hits-2B---3B--HR--Runs-RBI--TB--OBA-SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
Led league---7---6----8----5---0---5----2----6---6---6----0---1--6
2nd league---2---3----3----1---1---4----0----2---7---3----0---0--4
3rd----------5---2----1----1---1---4----3----1---0---0----0---2--0
4th----------2---1----0----2---1---1----2----2---2---3----0---2--3
5th----------1---0----0----1---1---1----2----2---0---1----0---2--0
6th----------0---0----2----0---1---0----0----1---1---0----0---0--1

Ed Collins--BA--Hits-2B--3B---HR--Runs-RBI--TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
Led League---0---0----0---0----0---3----0---0----0---0---4---1--0
2nd league---3---2----0---1----0---1----0---0----3---0---4---5--1
3rd----------0---1----0---0----0---2----1---1----7---1---2---2--2
4th----------5---1----1---0----0---2----0---0----2---0---2---2--2
5th----------2---3----0---1----0---0----1---3----2---1---1---1--3
6th----------1---1----0---2----0---1----0---1----1---2---1---1--0

Crawford----BA---Hits-2B--3B--HR---Runs-RBI--TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league---0----0----1---6---2----1----3----2---0---0---0---0--0
2nd league---4----5----4---3---2----1----4----6---0---4---0---0--2
3rd----------1----4----0---3---2----0----2----2---0---3---0---0--4
4th----------2----0----1---0---1----1----2----1---2---1---0---0--3
5th----------0----2----0---0---3----2----1----2---2---2---0---0--0
6th----------1----0----2---3---1----0----2----1---1---0---1---0--1

J.Jackson---BA---Hits-2B--3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league---0----2----1---3---0---0----0---2---1----1----0---0--0
2nd league---3----2----2---1---0---1----0---2---2----3----0---0--3
3rd league---2----2----2---2---1---2----1---1---0----1----0---1--2
4th----------2----2----0---1---0---1----4---1---3----2----0---0--1
5th----------0----0----0---0---1---0----0---0---1----2----0---0--3
6th----------0----0----0---0---0---1----0---0---0----0----1---0--0

Z. Wheat----BA---Hits-2B--3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB---OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league---1----0----2---0---0---0----0---0----0----1----0---0--0
2nd league---1----3----2---0---0---0----0---0----0----0----0---0--1
3rd league---2----2----1---0---0---1----2---0----0----1----0---0--1
4th----------2----0----0---0---1---0----0---0----2----2----0---0--1
5th----------1----1----0---2---2---0----1---0----1----1----0---0--2
6th----------0----0----0---1---2---1----2---0----0----0----0---0--1

Edd Roush--BA---Hits-2B--3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league--2----0----1---1---1---0----0---1---0----1----0---0--1
2nd league--2----0----1---2---0---0----1---0---0----0----1---0--1
3rd league--1----3----0---3---0---0----1---0---1----1----0---0--2
4th---------1----1----0---1---1---0----0---1---1----1----1---0--1
5th---------1----1----0---0---0---2----0---1---1----0----0---0--0
6th---------0----1----0---0---0---0----1---2---1----1----1---0--1

J. Foxx-----BA---Hits-2B--3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG--SB--BB--OPS+
led league---2-----0---0---0---4---1----3---3---3---5----0---2--5
2nd league---2-----1---0---0---3---2----0---1---3---1----0---1--2
3rd league---1-----2---0---0---2---1----3---0---3---2----0---3--0
4th----------0-----0---0---0---3---2----2---3---0---1----0---4--3
5th----------1-----0---0---0---0---1----0---1---2---2----0---0--1
6th----------0-----0---0---0---0---1----2---1---0---1----0---0--0

Clemente----BA---Hits-2B--3B---HR--Runs-RBI--TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league---4----2----0---1----0---0----0----0---0---0---0---0--0
2nd league---2----1----1---1----0---0----2----1---1---0---0---0--1
3rd league---1----1----0---2----0---0----0----1---0---1---0---0--1
4th----------2----1----0---1----0---2----0----0---1---0---0---0--0
5th----------1----1----1---4----0---0----0----1---0---1---0---0--0
6th----------0----1----2---1----0---0----0----0---3---1---0---0--1

Schmidt-----BA---Hits-2B--3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league---0----0----0---0---8---1----4---3---3---5----0---4--6
2nd league---0----0----0---0---1---2----1---1---0---2----0---2--1
3rd league---0----0----0---0---2---6----4---0---0---2----0---3--2
4th----------1----0----0---0---1---0----0---1---3---3----0---3--1
5th----------0----0----0---0---0---0----0---4---1---0----0---0--1
6th----------0----0----0---0---1---1----0---0---0---0----0---1--0

Yaz----------BA---Hits-2B-3B--HR---Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league----3----2---3---0---1----3----1---2---5---3----0---2--4
2nd league----2----0---1---0---0----1----0---0---1---0----0---3--1
3rd league----0----0---2---1---1----1----1---0---1---0----0---1--0
4th-----------0----2---0---0---1----1----0---2---0---1----0---1--0
5th-----------0----1---0---0---0----1----1---0---0---0----0---2--0
6th-----------0----1---1---0---0----0----0---2---0---0----0---0--1

Anson-------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR---Runs--RBI-TB--OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league--2----1----3--0---0-----0----8---1---4----0----0---1---1
2nd league--5----4----2--1---0-----0----3---2---5----4----0---1---2
3rd league--2----2----2--0---4-----0----3---2---1----1----0---1---1
4th---------1----0----2--0---1-----2----0---2---1----3----0---2---3
5th---------2----3----0--1---1-----2----0---0---2----1----0---0---3
6th---------0----0----1--0---0-----4----0---3---3----0----0---2---1

Bonds------BA---Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league--2----0----0--0---2---1----1---1---8----7----0--10---9
2nd league--0----0----0--0---5---3----1---0---3----1----0---4---3
3rd league--1----0----0--0---1---6----0---1---0----1----1---1---2
4th---------1----0----0--0---4---0----4---0---2----3----1---0---0
5th---------0----0----0--0---0---1----0---3---1----1----2---0---1
6th---------0----0----0--2---0---3----2---1---0----1----2---0---0

B. Williams--BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league----1---1----0--0---0---1----0---3---0---1---0---0--1
2nd league----0---0----1--1---2---0----3---1---1---0---0---0--0
3rd league----0---3----3--1---3---0----0---1---0---2---0---0--1
4th-----------2---0----1--0---1---1----0---1---0---1---0---0--0
5th-----------0---1----0--1---0---2----0---1---0---0---0---0--0
6th-----------0---1----0--0---1---0----0---0---0---1---0---1--0

Kiner-------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league---0---0----0--0---7---1----1---1---1---3---0---3--0
2nd league---0---0----0--0---0---0----3---2---0---0---0---3--0
3rd league---0---0----0--0---0---1----1---0---2---1---0---0--0
4th league---1---0----0--0---0---1----0---2---0---2---0---1--2
5th----------1---0----0--0---1---1----1---0---0---0---0---0--0
6th----------0---1----0--0---0---0----1---0---2---0---0---1--0

Killebrew---BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR---Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB--OPS+
led league---0---0----0--0---6----0----3---0---1---1---0---4---0
2nd league---0---0----0--0---2----1----2---2---1---3---0---1---1
3rd league---0---0----0--0---2----1----2---4---2---4---0---3---2
4th----------0---0----0--0---0----1----1---0---5---0---0---1---5
5th----------1---0----0--0---2----0----0---2---2---2---0---1---2
6th----------0---0----0--0---0----1----1---1---0---0---0---0---0

Rose--------BA-Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB--OPS+
led league---3---7---5--0---0---4----0---0---1---0---0---0---0
2nd league---2---5---2--2---0---3----0---1---1---0---0---0---0
3rd league---0---1---4--0---0---3----0---1---3---0---0---0---0
4th----------1---1---0--0---0---1----0---1---1---0---0---2---0
5th----------1---2---2--2---0---1----0---1---1---0---0---2---0
6th----------0---0---0--1---0---0----0---1---0---0---0---1---1

Gwynn------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR---Runs-RBI-TB---OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league--8---7----0--0---0----1----0---0----1---0---0---0--0
2nd league--1---0----1--3---0----0----0---0----2---0---1---0--0
3rd league--2---1----1--0---0----0----0---1----0---0---0---0--1
4th---------1---0----1--0---0----1----0---0----1---0---0---0--1
5th---------1---0----0--1---0----0----0---0----2---0---0---0--0
6th---------0---0----0--0---0----0----1---0----0---0---1---0--1

Kaline-----BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs--RBI-TB---OBA-SLG-SB--BB--OPS+
led league--1----1---1--0---0----0----0---1----0---1---0---0---1
2nd league--3----1---1--0---0----1----2---1----3---1---0---0---2
3rd league--2----1---1--0---0----0----0---0----2---1---0---0---1
4th---------1----1---0--1---0----0----0---2----0---1---1---0---1
5th---------0----0---2--1---0----1----1---0----2---1---0---1---0
6th---------0----1---1--1---0----1----1---1----0---1---1---1---0

Greenberg---BA---Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league---0----0----2--0---4----1---4---2---0---1---0---2--0
2nd league---0----0----2--0---2----1---1---3---2---4---0---1--4
3rd league---0----0----1--1---0----1---1---1---2---2---0---0--1
4th----------0----1----0--0---0----1---1---0---0---0---0---0--2
5th----------1----1----0--1---0----0---0---1---0---0---0---0--0
6th----------1----1----0--0---0----0---0---0---0---0---0---3--0

Waner-------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB--OPS+
led league---3---2----2--2---0---2----1---1---0---0---0---0---0
2nd league---1---3----1--5---0---2----0---0---2---0---1---2---0
3rd league---0---1----1--0---0---0----0---1---2---1---0---1---1
4th----------3---1----2--1---0---1----0---2---1---2---0---1---4
5th----------1---0----0--0---0---0----0---3---1---2---0---0---0
6th----------0---2----1--0---0---1----0---1---2---0---0---0---1

R.Jackson----BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB--OPS+
led league----0---0----0--0---4----2---1---0---0---3---0---0---4
2nd league----0---0----3--0---3----0---0---3---0---2---0---1---1
3rd league----0---0----0--0---1----1---1---0---0---1---0---0---0
4th-----------0---0----0--0---1----0---1---1---1---0---0---1---1
5th-----------0---0----1--0---2----2---0---0---1---2---0---1---1
6th-----------0---0----0--0---0----0---3---0---2---1---0---0---1

Boggs--------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league---5----1----2--0---0---2----0---0---6---0---0---1--1
2nd league---1----5----3--0---0---0----0---0---1---0---0---0--2
3rd league---2----0----2--0---0---1----0---0---1---1---0---3--0
4th----------1----2----1--0---0---0----0---1---1---0---0---0--2
5th----------2----0----0--0---0---1----0---1---0---0---0---2--0
6th----------0----0----0--0---0---1----0---0---1---0---0---0--1

Gehringer---BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR---Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league---1---2----2--1---0----2----0---0---0---0---1---0--0
2nd league---1---2----2--1---0----1----0---0---2---0---1---0--0
3rd league---0---0----1--1---0----3----0---0---0---0---0---1--0
4th----------1---0----2--0---0----1----0---2---1---0---0---1--0
5th----------2---3----0--1---0----2----1---0---1---0---0---2--0
6th----------0---0----0--0---0----0----0---4---1---0---0---1--1

Brouthers----BA--Hits-2B--3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league----5---3----3---1---2----2---2---4---5---7---0---0--8
2nd league----1---2----2---4---1----0---2---2---5---3---0---0--1
3rd league----2---1----1---2---2----1---1---1---0---0---0---0--2
4th-----------1---1----2---1---0----0---1---1---1---0---0---2--0
5th-----------1---2----0---1---2----1---1---0---1---0---0---0--0
6th-----------0---0----1---0---0----0---1---3---0---0---0---0--0

Delahanty----BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league----1---1----5--1---2---0----3---2---2---5---1---0--4
2nd league----3---1----3--0---0---0----2---2---1---2---0---0--3
3rd league----2---1----2--2---1---1----1---2---2---1---0---0--1
4th-----------2---2----1--0---2---1----0---1---0---1---0---2--1
5th-----------0---1----0--0---1---2----1---0---2---1---0---0--1
6th-----------2---0----0--2---0---0----0---0---0---0---0---2--1

Mize---------BA-Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB--OPS+
led league----1---0---1--1---4---1----3---3---0---4---0---0---2
2nd league----2---0---1--0---2---1----1---4---2---3---0---0---5
3rd league----0---3---1--2---1---2----3---0---1---2---0---2---2
4th-----------0---0---0--0---1---0----0---0---1---0---0---0---0
5th-----------3---1---0--1---1---1----1---0---2---0---0---1---0
6th-----------0---2---0--0---0---1----0---0---0---0---0---1---0

Brett-------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB--OPS+
led league---3---3----2--3---0----0---0---1---3---3---0---0---3
2nd league---2---0----2--1---0----1---1---2---1---0---0---0---0
3rd league---0---0----2--0---0----1---0---0---1---0---0---1---0
4th----------0---0----1--1---0----1---0---1---1---1---0---0---0
5th----------0---1----1--1---0----1---1---1---0---1---0---0---2
6th----------2---0----0--2---0----0---1---0---1---2---0---0---0

F.Robinson---BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league----1---0----1--0---1----3---1---1---2---4---0---0--4
2nd league----2---2----0--0---2----2---4---1---6---1---0---1--1
3rd league----1---1----3--1---3----0---2---1---0---0---1---1--1
4th-----------1---0----1--0---3----1---0---3---3---5---1---2--1
5th-----------1---0----0--0---2----2---1---0---0---1---0---1--7
6th-----------2---1----2--0---1----1---0---1---0---1---1---0--1

Ashburn-----BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB--OPS+
led league---2---3----0--2---0---0----0---0---4---0---1---4---0
2nd league---2---1----0--0---0---0----0---0---0---0---2---2---0
3rd league---0---0----0--0---0---0----0---0---1---0---0---1---0
4th----------0---0----1--1---0---1----0---0---1---0---1---0---0
5th----------0---1----1--3---0---2----0---0---1---0---2---1---1
6th----------2---3----0--0---0---2----0---0---0---0---2---1---0

Sisler-------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league----2---2----0--2---0---1----0---2---0---0---4---0--0
2nd league----1---1----1--2---2---2----1---1---1---2---2---0--1
3rd league----2---3----1--1---0---0----0---1---1---0---0---0--2
4th-----------2---3----1--0---0---1----1---1---0---2---0---0--1
5th-----------0---0----0--0---0---0----0---3---1---2---1---0--1
6th-----------0---0----0--0---0---0----2---0---1---0---1---0--1

Snider------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB--OPS+
led league---0----1---0--0---1----3---1---3---1---2---0---1---1
2nd league---0----1---2--0---1----1---1---1---1---2---0---0---1
3rd league---2----1---2--2---1----0---1---0---2---0---0---1---2
4th----------1----0---0--0---1----1---1---0---0---1---0---1---0
5th----------1----0---0--0---0----0---0---3---0---1---1---1---0
6th----------0----0---0--0---1----1---1---0---0---1---1---1---1

Simmons-----BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league---2---2----0--0---0----1---1---2---0---0---0---0--0
2nd league---2---0----2--0---1----2---2---2---0---3---0---0--0
3rd league---1---3----0--0---2----0---2---1---0---3---0---0--2
4th----------3---3----0--0---1----0---1---1---0---0---0---0--1
5th----------0---0----0--0---3----0---2---1---0---2---0---0--1
6th----------0---0----0--1---1----0---1---0---1---0---0---0--1

Banks--------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league----0---0----0--0---2---0----2---1---0---1---0---0--0
2nd league----0---0----0--1---2---2----0---1---0---1---0---0--1
3rd league----0---0----0--0---2---0----2---3---0---0---0---0--0
4th-----------0---1----1--0---1---0----1---0---0---1---0---0--1
5th-----------0---0----1--1---0---0----1---0---0---2---0---0--2
6th-----------1---0----0--0---1---0----1---1---0---0---0---0--0

Bench------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league--0---0----0--0---2---0----3---1---0---0---0---0--0
2nd league--0---0----1--0---1---1----1---1---0---0---0---0--1
3rd league--0---0----2--0---0---0----1---1---0---2---0---1--0
4th---------0---0----0--0---1---0----0---0---0---2---0---0--0
5th---------0---0----0--0---0---0----0---0---0---1---0---0--0
6th---------0---0----1--0---0---0----0---0---0---0---0---0--0

Molitor-----BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league---0---3----1--1---0---3----0---0---0---0---0---0--0
2nd league---2---1----0--1---0---1----0---0---1---0---0---0--0
3rd league---1---2----0--0---0---0----0---0---0---0---1---0--1
4th----------1---2----0--0---0---1----0---1---0---0---2---0--0
5th----------2---1----0--0---0---0----0---0---0---1---0---0--0
6th----------3---0----0--0---0---0----0---0---0---0---2---0--1

Terry--------BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league----1---1----0--1---0---1----0---0---0---0---0---0--0
2nd league----3---3----0--0---0---1----0---2---0---0---0---0--0
3rd league----0---1----1--1---1---0----1---0---0---1---0---0--0
4th-----------2---1----0--2---1---0----0---2---1---0---0---0--2
5th-----------0---0----1--1---0---0----2---0---2---1---0---0--1
6th-----------1---0----0--0---0---2----1---0---0---0---0---0--0

Keeler-----BA---Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG-SB--BB-OPS+
led league--2----3----0--0---0----1---0---0---0---0---0---0--0
2nd league--2----5----0--0---0----5---0---1---1---1---0---0--1
3rd league--1----1----0--0---0----1---0---1---2---0---0---0--0
4th---------3----2----0--1---0----1---0---1---0---0---1---0--1
5th---------1----1----0--0---0----1---0---1---0---0---1---0--0
6th---------1----0----0--1---0----1---0---2---1---0---0---0--0

Henderson----BA--Hits-2B-3B--HR--Runs-RBI-TB--OBA-SLG--SB-BB--OPS+
led league----0---1----0--0---0----5---0---0---1---0---12--4---1
2nd league----1---0----0--1---0----1---0---0---2---1----0--2---1
3rd league----0---0----0--0---0----1---0---0---6---0----0--1---0
4th-----------2---0----0--0---0----3---0---0---1---0----2--5---0
5th-----------0---0----0--0---0----1---0---0---2---0----1--0---0
6th-----------0---0----0--0---1----0---0---1---1---0----2--1---0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
leecemark; November 11, 19, 2004, 05:56 AM
The Final Tally
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Congratulations to Honus Wagner as our first unanimous #1 selection.
1. Honus Wagner 250
2. Alex Rodriguez 187
3. Arky Vaughan 153
4. Cal Ripken........141
5. J.H. "Pop" Lloyd 98
6. Ernie Banks........96
7. Robin Yount.......67
8. Luke Appling......61
8. Joe Cronin.........61
10. George Davis.....45

--And the second 10
11. Barry Larkin........33
12. Lou Boudreau......22
13. Derek Jeter.........21
13. Ozzie Smith........21
15. Willie Wells.........19
16. Vern Stephens....14
17. Hughie Jennings...12
18. Alan Trammell.......9
18. Phil Rizzuto..........9
20. Louis Aparicio.......8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
538280; November 24, 2005, 04:38 PM
The results are now in. We had 16 ballots. Not surprisingly, Honus Wagner was a near unanimous #1 selection. A-Rod also claimed the #2 spot in a close race against Arky Vaughan. Here are all players who received 10 or more points (first place votes in parenthesis):

1. Honus Wagner-189 (15)
2. Alex Rodriguez-120
3. Arky Vaughan 114
4. Cal Ripken Jr.-88
5. Pop Lloyd-83 (1)
6. Ernie Banks-64
7. Barry Larkin-55
8. Robin Yount-51
9. Luke Appling-31
10. Joe Cronin-26
11. George Davis-17
12. Ozzie Smith-15
13. Willie Wells-12
14. Derek Jeter-11
-------------------------------------------------------
Bill Burgess; May 2, 2007, 07:13 PM
OK. This poll/survey has been open for 11 days now, and it it time it closed.
Here are the results of our 3rd round of Greatest Position Players for Shortstops. I go by the 10-9-8 system.

1. Honus Wagner - 186
2. Alexander Rodriguez - 157
3. Cal Ripken - 122
4. Arky Vaughan - 92
5. John Lloyd - 83
6. Ernie Banks - 79
7. Robin Yount - 78
8. Barry Larkin - 53
9. Luke Applilng - 39
10. Ozzie Smith - 28
11. Joe Cronin - 24
12. Derek Jeter - 22
13. George Davis - 13
14. Babe Dahlen - 9
15. Herman Long - 4
15. Hughie Jennings - 4
15. Rabbit Maranville - 4
15. Willie Wells - 4
15. Lou Boudreau - 4
20. Alan Trammell - 3
21. Miguel Tejada - 2
22. Joe Sewell - 2
23. Luis Aparicio - 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greatest Hitter series, conducted by Bill Burgess, ending November 4, 2007, 08:05 AM

1. Babe Ruth---------68 votes - 95.77%
1. Ted Williams-------68 - 95.77%
3. Ty Cobb-----------52 - 73.24%
4. Rogers Hornsby----36 - 50.70%
5. Lou Gehrig---------32 - 45.07%
6. Barry Bonds
7. Mickey Mantle
8. Stan Musial
9. Hank Aaron
10. Willie Mays
11. Jimmy Foxx
12. Honus Wagner
13. Frank Thomas
14. Tris Speaker
15. Frank Robinson
16. Joe DiMaggio
17. Joe Jackson
18. Josh Gibson
19. Nap Lajoie
20. Mel Ott
21. Oscar Charleston
22. Alexander Rodriguez
23. Dan Brouthers
24. Mike Schmidt

Greatest Hitter series (conducted by Bill Burges, commenced on September 17, 2009. Still in progress.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Ty Cobb
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Rogers Hornsby
6. Mickey Mantle
7. Stan Musial
8. Barry Bonds
9. Hank Aaron
10. Honus Wagner

How Ty/Honus did before/after the age of 30:
Relative Slg. Ave.

-----Ty----------------Honus
1906--1.18--age 19
1907--1.44
1908--1.49
1909--1.58
1910--1.65
1911--1.64-----------1898--1.16--age 24
1912--1.64-----------1899--1.31
1913--1.54-----------1900--1.50
1914--1.50-----------1901--1.35
1915--1.42-----------1902--1.38
1916--1.44-----------1903--1.41

------------------------------------Decline phase, age 30

1917--1.72-----------1904--1.54
1918--1.57-----------1905--1.44
1919--1.39-----------1906--1.39
1920--1.13-----------1907--1.59
1921--1.42-----------1908--1.70
1922--1.39-----------1909--1.45
1923--1.18-----------1910--1.21
1924--1.11-----------1911--1.34
1925--1.43-----------1912--1.31
1926--1.25-----------1913--1.06
1927--1.14-----------1914--0.93
1928--1.03-----------1915--1.23
---------------------1916--1.08
---------------------1917--0.86 - 74 games

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty Career Inside the Park Home Runs

1. Sam Crawford --------- 51 of 97 (52%)
2. Tommy Leach ---------- 49 of 63 (77%)
3. Ty Cobb -------------- 46 of 117(39%)
4. Honus Wagner---------- 41 of 101(40%)
5. Tris Speaker --------- 37 of 117(31%)
6. Jake Daubert --------- 33 of 56 (58%)
7. Chief Wilson --------- 31 of 59 (52%)
8. Rogers Hornsby ------- 30 of 301(9.9%)
9. Willie Keeler -------- 30 of 33 (90%)
10. Edd Roush ----------- 30 of 68 (44%)
11. Max Carey ----------- 28 of 70 (40%)
12. Ed Konetchy --------- 28 of 74 (37%)
13. Jesse Burkett ------- 27 of 75 (36%)
14. Zack Wheat ---------- 25 of 132(18.9%)
15. Hal Chase ----------- 24 of 57 (42%)
16. Fred Clarke --------- 23 of 67 (34%)
17. Earle Combs --------- 23 of 58 (39%)
18. Rabbit Maranville --- 22 of 28 (78%)
19. Ginger Beaumont ----- 21 of 39 (53%)
20. Sherry Magee -------- 21 of 83 (25%)
21. Sam Rice ------------ 21 of 34 (61%)
22. Cy Seymour ---------- 21 of 52 (40%)
23. George Sisler ------- 20 of 102(19%)

----------------------------------------------------
Andy contributed this useful tabulation on February 3, 2006. Based on our polls from 2004-05.

Rank...Player....Rank from 1st set of polls.....change
1) Babe Ruth 1 0
2) Ty Cobb 2 0
3) Willie Mays 4 +1
4) Honus Wagner 3 -1
5) Ted Williams 7 +2
6) Barry Bonds 9 +3
7) Tris Speaker 8 +1
8) Stan Musial 11 +3
9) Lou Gehrig 5 -4
10) Hank Aaron 10 0
11) Mickey Mantle 12 +1
12) Rogers Hornsby 6 -6
13) Eddie Collins 17 +4
14) Mike Schmidt 15 +1
15) Oscar Charleston 13 -2
16) Josh Gibson 18 +2
17) Joe DiMaggio 16 -1
18) Frank Robinson 21 +3
19) Joe Morgan 25 +6
20) Jimmie Foxx 14 -6
21) Nap Lajoie 20 -1
22) Johnny Bench 24 +2
23) Mel Ott 31 +8
24) Rickey Henderson 30 +6
25) Alex Rodriguez 32 +7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of the 1st Greatest Player Ever Election: 3rd round; conducted by paulmcgraff1213, September 18-23, 2004.

Willie Mays----------6 24.00%
Barry Bonds----------2 8.00%
Honus Wagner--------13 52.00%
Hank Aaron-----------0 0%
Mickey Mantle--------1 4.00%
Joe DiMaggio---------0 0%
Rogers Hornsby-------0 0%
Lou Gehrig-----------0 0%
Ted Williams---------2 8.00%
Yogi Berra-----------0 0%
Stan Musial----------0 0%
Jimmie Foxx----------0 0%
Jackie Robinson------0 0%
Johnny Bench---------0 0%
Pete Rose------------1 4.00%
Ernie Banks----------0 0%
Roberto Clemente-----0 0%
Mike Schmidt---------0 0%
Frank Robinson-------0 0%
Tris Speaker---------0 0%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of the 2nd Greatest Player Ever Poll on Fever, conducted by ElHalo, September 5, 2005, 08:39 PM; Greek God of Baseball Join Date: Oct 2003; Location: New York City; Posts: 8,549

Voting is now closed. We'll be moving on to the balloting for number 2.

Two ballots were not counted. One that included King Kelly and Cap Anson, since no justification was given for that, and one that was given as being in "no particular order."

The only players to make every ballot were Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. Honus Wagner and Willie Mays both were left off of one ballot. 1at place received 12 points instead of 10.

1. Babe Ruth ---------- 480
2. Ty Cobb ------------ 393
3. Willie Mays -------- 318
4. Honus Wagner ------- 258
5. Ted Williams ------- 230
6. Barry Bonds -------- 148
7. Lou Gehrig --------- 118
8. Mickey Mantle ------- 91
9. Stan Musial --------- 75
10. Oscar Charleston --- 64
11. Rogers Hornsby ----- 61
12. Tris Speaker ------- 54
13. Hank Aaron ----------52
14. Josh Gibson -------- 30
15. Joe DiMaggio ------- 22
16. Alex Rodriguez ----- 14
17. Mike Schmidt ------- 11
18. Eddie Collins ------- 9
19. Pop Lloyd ----------- 8
20. Nap Lajoie ---------- 7
20. George Sisler ------- 7
22. Jimmie Foxx --------- 5
23. Buck Ewing -----------4
24. Joe Jackson --------- 2
25. Jackie Robinson ----- 2
26. Frank Robinson ------ 1

----------------------Honus Wagner, Pirates' SS, 1907, Exposition Park---BB Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wagneho01.shtml)------------Obviously, same photo session.
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image6-1-2.jpg

---Honus Wagner, Pirates' SS, 1908, Home---------------------------------------- 1908-09------------------------------------------------1909, Polo Grounds---BB Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wagneho01.shtml)
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Image21-3.jpghttp://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/4/2/6/f_honusm_636759f.gif

--------------------------1910, cropped-----------------------------------------------------------1910, uncropped
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image2-2-2.jpg
------------------------------------1911
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image4-4-3.jpg

tonypug

12-21-2003, 06:57 PM

Wagner is what I would call a classic player. A classic player is one who others are measured against. A Rod is probably the best shortstop playing today useing todays standards. According to everything written about him Wagner will always be in a class by himself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Left: Honus Wagner: Baseball: A Celebration!, by James Buckley, Jr./Jim Gigliotti, 2001, pp. 114-115.

-------------------------------------1908, Polo Grounds -------------------------------------------------1908-09----BB Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wagneho01.shtml)
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image6-5-1-1.jpg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Left: The Story of Baseball in words and pictures, by John Durant, 1947, pp. 49. Or one can alternately use the much more cropped version; Pictorial History of American Sports, by John Durant/Otto Bettmann, 1952, pp. 131
Source: Right: Baseball, by Mike Kennedy, 2003, pp. 47.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Awesome photo, Bill!! :clapping I'd never seen it before..

-------------------------Pirates' SS-------------------------------------------------------- 1908, Polo Grounds (Bresnahan catching)
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image5-4-1.jpg

-----------------1901-04-----------------------------------------1903-------------------------------------------------1903
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/kpyve-1.jpg

---------------------------------------------1908-09--------------------------------------------------------1904-09
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image5-32.jpg

1904: Nap Lajoie/Honus Wagner
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Napoleon2520Lajoie2520and2520Hon-1.jpg

Brad Harris

12-22-2003, 07:36 AM

A Brief (Unsupported) Summary of My Opinion:

Despite the fact that his team paid about 25% more than it had to in order to sign him, and that a quarter-billion dollar contract is an anomoly the likes of which we should never see again, Alex Rodriguez has earned every penny of his paycheck since signing with Texas. I'd rather spend $25 million on Rodriguez than any lesser amount on any player (or combination of players).

Alex Rodriguez is the best player in baseball. His salary is commensurate with that distinction.

Having said that now, Honus Wagner is the greatest shortstop in history and certainly one of the five greatest players - period - in the game's 135-years of professionalism. He is so far ahead of the next-best shortstop that Rodriguez would have to elevate his game to even greater heights to even begin to match the impact that Wagner had on the game.

Even if their career numbers look similar when all is said and done (and I hope Rodriguez has a long and successful career), Rodriguez is fighting against the impossible task of absolutely dominating the game to the extent that Wagner did.

Rodriguez's only hope (and it's a very likely scenario) is that he'll wind up as the second-greatest shortstop in the game's history. Joe Cronin, Ernie Banks, Arky Vaughan and Cal Ripken vie for that honor now. If the first-half of Rodriguez's career is pretty much what we can expect from his for his remaining years in baseball, then there's no doubt in my mind that Alex Rodriguez will wind up as the greatest shortstop in baseball history...

...not named Honus Wagner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top, Left: The History of Baseball, by Alison Danzig/ Joe Reichler, 1959, pp. 162.
Top, Middle: The Pirates Reader, by Richard Peterson, 2003, pp. 84.
Top, Right: The Great Baseball Players: from McGraw to Mantle: by Bert Randolph Sugar, 1997, pp. 8.

Honus Wagner: Pirates' SS,
-------------------1908-09------------------------------------------1912-13----------------------------------1913
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image15-13.jpg

--------------------------------1913-------------------------------------------------------------1910-11
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/lkk-1.jpg

Source: Left: Baseball: The Illustrated History of America's Game, by Donald Honig, 1990, pp. 41.

------------------------------------------------1901-09
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/juio-1.jpg

Source: That Old Ball Game: rare photographs from baseball's glorious past, Compiled and Edited by David R. Phillips, text by Lawrence Kart, 1975, pp. 49.

--------------------------------------------1909, Forbes Field
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image13-14.jpg

Source: Left: Heroes of Baseball: The Men who Made It America's Favorite Game, by Robert Lipsyte,
OR, . . . one can alternately use the more cropped Total Baseball, 8th. Edition, 2004, pp. 950.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1912
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image14-1-2-1-1.jpg

Eddie Collins

12-22-2003, 09:44 AM

and how about Willie "Devil" Wells, said to be the greatest post-Lloyd NL shortstop. If Lloyd was comparable to Wagner, I would guess that Wells was something like Joe Cronin, though probably a better fielder.

Anyway,

Arod can break the all time HR record, record 3,000 hits, and keep up with his current pace of great seasons, and still not be as dominant was Wagner was in his day. He has to go beyond that even.

Perhaps I am just old fashioned. I love the old players, and often will not admit that any current players are superior. That being said, I supported Arod for MVP this year and believe he should have won it last year as well. He is one of the greats. But remember when Griffey was the next Willie Mays? One injury can kill all that, and everyone's perception of him. Arod needs to keep it up for a few more years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------1913-14---------------------------------------------------------------------1915-17
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image20-2-2-1.jpg

Top, Left: The Baseball Anthology: 125 Years, ed. by Joseph Wallace, 1994, pp. 104. (UPI/Bettman)
Top, Right: The Game That Was: The George Brace Baseball Photo Collection: by Richard Cahan/Mark Jacob, 1996, pp. 6.

Honus Wagner; Pirates SS, 1910; Catcher might be Cubs Jimmie Archer.
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image12-17-1.jpg

Source: Left: SABR's The National Pastime: Special Pictorial Issue: The Dead Ball Era, Spring, 1986, #5, pp. 12 is less cropped, but much less detailed. This one is better
Source: Right: Baseball . . . The Perfect Game, edited by Josh Leventhal, 2005, pp. 121.

------------------------1901-06------------------------------------------------------------------1912-13
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image17-8.jpg

Source: Right: Smithsonian Baseball: Inside The World's Finest , Private Collections, by Stephan Wong, 2005, pp. 217.

------------------------1910-----------------------------------------------------------------------------1912, Forbes Field
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image11-1-1.jpg

Source: Left: The New Biographical History History of Baseball, by Donald Dewey/Nicholas Acocella, 2002, pp. 330.
Source: Right: Baseball Between the Wars, by Bill Hageman, 2001, pp. 11.

-----------------------------------1912-13------------------------------------------------------------------------1915-17
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image19-12.jpg

blighty baseball bloke

12-24-2003, 08:46 AM

Well, I'm pleased that we're all in violent agreement on this topic. Honus is the tops in my book - a great player and a great man. I look at photo's of him, particularly that one in "The Glory of Their Times" with him sitting on his bat, and think - there's a ballplayer.

His 1908 season is by many reckonings, the best single season ever by a position player. In 1908, he led the National League in :

BA
OBP
Slg%
OPS (by 140 points!!)
Hits
Total bases
Doubles
Triples
RBI
Steals
OPS+ (more than double the league average)
XBH

He came second in :

HR
R

So, in 1908, Wagner, a short stop, came in the top 2 in every single offensive category - some season. No wonder he received 59 win shares - the highest total ever by a position player. To put this into context, Bonds "only" received 54 in his monster 2001 season.

A titan of the game, and long may his memory be celebrated by true fans of the game.

BBB
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseball's Dream Teams: The Greatest Major League Players Decade by Decade, by Lloyd Johnson, 1990, pp. 20.

Honus Wagner, Pirates' SS, 1901-06, Polo Grounds
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image21-13.jpghttp://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/4/2/6/f_honusm_636759f.gif

May 4, 1933: Hans Wagner Waving to Crowd, Brooklyn, NY
Original caption: Hans Wagner Honored. It was Hans Wagner Day at Ebbets Field, Brooklyn, May 4th, and the old-time star, now coach of the Pittsburgh Pirates, was honored at a reception preceding the Dodgers-Pirates game. In his palmy days Wagner led the National League in batting eight times. Here he waves his acknowledgement of cheers from the fans.
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image23-11.jpg
-----------------------------------------------------------
Source: Below, Left: The Baseball Story, by Fred Lieb, 1950, pp. 115.
---Pirates SS, 1908-09
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image16-1-1.jpg

--------------------------------1901-06
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image2-37.jpg

Source: Right: The History of Baseball, by Allison Danzig/Joe Reichler, 1959, pp. 162.
---------------------1912-------------------------------1912--------------------------------------------------1911
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image14-2-1-1.jpg

abolishthedh

12-30-2003, 08:09 PM

Here's another view of the matter. ARod is highly unlikely to do what would be necessary to be better than Wagner. I believe it is necessary for him to start hitting for average, and then let the homers take care of themselves.

With ARod's ability, strength and whatnot, if he concentrates on a higher average, then I believe the homers would take care of themselves. However, to earn his paycheck, he's forced to focus on the home runs. For this reason, I can see Arod as satisfied with .295, 50+, and 120+ RBI a year. The problem with this scenario is that all that happens is that Arod will be perceived as a modern day player who pursues power numbers.

I am saying that to truly match up with Wagner, he has to try to be a similar player first. Otherwise, we'll just be arguing apples and oranges.

And then, we might still be arguing apples and oranges because of the ridiculous growth in the size of gloves. Wagner played ball with a glove which was less than half the size of Arod's. This is how Wagner accumulated 676 errors at SS in 21 years, and 825 errors overall (baseball-reference.com)

Anyway, he isn't approaching Wagner.:rolleyes:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Right: Who's Who in Major League Baseball, ed. by Harold (Speed) Johnson, 1933, pp. 458. (Moffett-Russell Studio)

Honus Wagner, Pirates' SS, 1908-09, Polo Grounds------------------Honus, 1933
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image3-6-1.jpg

Bresnahan meeting Hans Wagner at the Home Plate, 1909------------------------------------------------1913
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/kkjkjk-1.jpg

------------------------Honus Wagner, Pirates' SS, ---------------------1908-09
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image8-24.jpg

--------------------Honus Wagner, Pirates' SS, 1908-09------------------------------------------------1908-09
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image10-20.jpg

---------------------------------1906-------------------------------------------------------------1909
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image12-18.jpg

TheMan6

01-02-2004, 05:50 PM

lets not forget that the flying dutchman played everthing and shortstop, I remember some quote from Ken Burns BASEBALL that said if you went and named the best player at every position Honus Wagner would be the whole field. Cal Ripken comes in at second, he was the epitome of the word "class" and he was a great all- around player too.

----------------------------------------1913-14
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image19-3-1.jpg

Left: The photo upon which they based the famous 'Wagner baseball card'.
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image6-6-1.jpg
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image4-9-1.jpg

Sashag

01-10-2004, 08:30 PM

A-Rod shouldn't even be in the same sentence as Wagner. Wagner could do anything. he could play any position and i believe is one of the few, if not the only guy, to play Every position except P during ONE game. A-Rod would kill himself trying to do that, hell, he wouldn;t even have the guts to try it. Another point, not to start a big battle but, Do you think he is using steroids? -Sasha.

Honus Wagner Pirates' SS, 1901-09,---BB Ref (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wagneho01.shtml)------------------------------------------------------Max Carey/Honus Wagner: 1913
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/59532a-1.jpghttp://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/54105-1.jpg

----------------------------------1938-39-----------------------------------------------------------1946
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image14.jpg

----------1913-14
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image4-6-2.jpg

A rare, unique and beautiful photo of Honus Wagner. I was just sent this photo via the internet by Mical Mladen. Enjoy!
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Bills%20Rare%20Photo%20Finds/photo.jpg

csh19792001

01-11-2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Sashag
A-Rod shouldn't even be in the same sentence as Wagner. Wagner could do anything. he could play any position and i believe is one of the few, if not the only guy, to play Every position except P during ONE game. A-Rod would kill himself trying to do that, hell, he wouldn;t even have the guts to try it. Another point, not to start a big battle but, Do you think he is using steroids? -Sasha.

AND SPEAKING ON THE ALWAYS PERTINENT "TIMELINE" QUARREL....

If anyone has any valid arguments as to how A-ROD is better than Wagner, or how he could possibly end up being greater than Wagner, I'd love to hear it, because I don't think A-Rod is even close, or ever will be.

I don't think anyone is close to Cobb all-time, either, and he played a long, long time ago, too. (I've spent years researching Cobb and didn't come to this conclusion lightly, by the way)

And as far as strength goes (people always harp on how modern players and bigger and faster), just look at pictures of Honus in his prime, and look at his SB numbers. He was a hulk, almost like a Gehrig, and he could run like the wind.

If guys like Wagner and Ruth and Cobb had had access to steroids, weightlifting, personal trainers, jets, personal chefs, and the array of comforts and luxuries that being a multi-multi millionaire afford, they would have been bolstered tremendously.

I know both sides of the argument about the timeline adjustment, but I think people always harp on the old timers as being absolutely no comparison to modern players, without looking at the obvious converse.

Chris

Bob Hannah

01-11-2004, 10:41 PM

G.H. Fleming's 1981 book,The Unforgettable Season, offers contemporary newspaper accounts of how shortstop Wagner was viewed by managers, players, and sportswriters ninety-six years ago. He was Jordan, Pele, Ali, and Jesus Christ rolled into one. Justifiably so.

Bill Burgess

02-20-2005, 01:47 AM

I'd like to show this former thread so that Honus Wagner Rules can see the big time support for Hans.
--------------------------
In 1924 Honus Wagner picked an All-Time All-Star Team.

---------------------------------------Hans Wagner's Team of Baseball "Immortals"
--------------------------------------------------The Literary Digest, January 26, 1924

Baseball Players a plenty have come and gone since the national game got under way in these United States, but, says Hans Wagner, affectionately known as "Honus," the greatest of shortstops, it is not very difficult to pick out a team deserving to rank as "the best." John McGraw, Connie Mack, and Babe Ruth, recalls Honus, who is now writing a series of syndicated articles for the North American Newspaper Alliance, have picked their all-American, all-time, baseball teams. The official guide-book gives another selecting, but that, says, Honus, is made up in exact accordance with records, "the human element not being taken into account." He modestly adds that, "All of those baseball men and the guidebook have been good enough to place me at shortstop, a fact that is my greatest pride in life. It is not for me to pass judgment on myself, naturally." If his selection is not the best of all time, he goes on, at least it is his own idea of the best that can be p picked from the players of the last thirty years, during which time, nobody will deny, practically all of the supermen of baseball have appeared. His team-of-teams lines up in this way, as presented by the New York World:

Manager--John J. McGraw of New York.
Captain--Fred C. Clarke of Pittsburgh
First Base--George Sisler of St. Louis Browns.
Second Base--Bobby Wallace of the old St. Louis Browns.
Third Base--Jimmy Collins of Boston.
Extra Infielder--Eddie Collins of Philadelphia and Chicago.
Left Field--Fred Clarke of Pittsburgh.
Center Field--Tris Speaker of Cleveland.
Right Field--Ty Cobb of Detroit.
Extra Outfielder--Babe Ruth of New York.
Catcher--Johnny Kling of the Cubs, Roger Bresnahan of the Giants, Ray Schalk of the White Sox.
Pitchers--Walter Johnson of Washington, Christy Mathewson of the Giants, Grover Cleveland Alexander of the Cubs, Cy Young and Rube Waddell.
Pinch hitters--Sammy Strand and Ham Hyatt.

"To be prepared for a lot of arguments that are sure to come," continues Mr. Wagner:

I will explain in detail why I have made these selections. I have looked over the selections of others, but in no way have I allowed them to influence me in making my own. Whether or not you agree with me, these are my selections and, like the fellow who went home to his wife with a poor alibi, I'm going to stick to them.

I have selected McGraw as manager because of his great record and also because of his knowledge of every angle of the game as a player as well as a manager. He knows his business. McGraw also knows how to handle men. He is a great executive as well as a field manager. At no time in his life did McGraw ever allow club owners to influence him in the signing or purchase of players. His strong will-power made that possible.

With the team I have selected, however, little managing would be necessary. All my manager would have to do would be to make out a schedule and then come around on pay-day. Incidentally, it would be interesting to speculate on just how much a manager would pay each of those men according to present-day rates of salary. Who would get the most money?

Already I have a feeling that some of the critics will say that I have selected too many left-handed hitters. They may have an idea that this team would be weak on left-handed pitching. But I have taken that into consideration. Every man I have selected can hit left-handers as well as right-handers. I have purposely left out those left-handed hitters who have to be taken out against southpaws in a pinch. I never thought much of a ball-player as a star hitter who was weak against left- or right-handed pitching. A good hitter can hit any kind. Fred Clarke, for example, was the best left-handed hitter against left-handed pitching that I ever saw.

I have taken several qualities into consideration--batting, fielding, base-running, and love of the game. More important, however, are brains, aggressiveness, length of service and team-work.

Now, when you consider length of service, which is probably the most important of all, you will see that this club could be kept on the field for many years without falling apart. There would be no worry about filling up weak places ever year. Every one of those not playing now lasted fifteen years or more.

I have limited myself to five pitchers, because I consider that enough. All pitchers do better with plenty of work.

My reason for selecting three catchers is that I could use Bresenham, in a pinch, as a pitcher, an infielder or an outfielder. That is true also of McGraw. Even tho McGraw is my manager, he could be used in the infield, as a pinch-hitter or a base-runner. He is the best I ever saw to get on base either by walking, being hit by the pitcher, or hitting the ball.

I am assuming, of course, that all these players would be in their prime when I started my club on the field the first season. As a matter of fact, some of those had retired before the others were born. I guess old Cy Young was through when George Sisler was a baby. It's sort of funny, at that, to think of old Jimmy Collins and Babe Ruth on the same team.

They were putting Jimmy on the All-American teams of all time when Babe Ruth was born.

To my club I have added pinch-hitters because they are an important part of any team nowadays. I have selected Sammy Strang and Ham Hyatt. They were the best I ever saw. Sammy made eleven pinch-hits in a row one season.

To be a good pinch-hitter requires a peculiar sort of temperament, an easy-going , unexcitable disposition. Both Hyatt and Strang had that. Either of them could go into a game without warming up. Mighty few ball-players can do that. Nothing seemed to bother them, however.

The status of the game meant nothing to those boys, whether there were three on bases and a pennant depending on a hit or not. They would simply amble up there to the old pan as if they had not even heard about what was going on.

I have eliminated several wonderful players because of faulty dispositions. Also I have not even considered men who ever had done anything questionable in baseball. A man who does not give his best to a club is no good on a team, even if he is the best mechanical player in the world. I won't mention one or two that I have in mind, but I guess you can guess. They are better forgotten.

The hard part about this job was the elimination of certain players rather than the selection of others. It's awful hard, for instance, to leave off a man like Willie Keeler. I would like to give my reasons for leaving these old friends out, but, naturally, there isn't room here. I want you to remember, tho, that I have considered all of them as carefully and sincerely as I could. For every one left off I have a good reason.

There is no doubt in my mind as to the superiority of my pitching staff, even tho it doesn't agree with many others.

I'd like somebody to show me where they could dig up five better winning pitchers than Johnson, Mathewson, Alexander, Cy Young and Rube Waddell.

Picking this team has given me a laugh. I get a smile every time I think of what the opposing pitchers would be up against with John McGraw on one coaching line and Fred Clarke on the other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1935, Honus picked an All-Time All-Star Team.

He had done one in the 1920's and later another in 1949.

1B - Bill Terry
2B - Larry Lajoie
3B - Pie Traynor/Jimmy Collins
SS - ?
C - Johnny Kling
LF - Fred Clarke
CF - Clarence 'Ginger' Beaumont
RF - Bill Lange
P - Christy Mathewson/Cy Young
--------------------
His Commentary.
He had picked this team for Sec Taylor of the Des Moines Register. And they constituted his choices for the Hall of Fame. If he selected a SS, it was considered silly to list his own name.

"Matty was the best of all pitchers because he never gave you all he had until he had to. Then he poured it on. The three shutouts he pitched in one world's series weren't accidents. Young won more than 500 games, the only pitcher who ever went over that mark. He had a fine fast ball--much faster than he was ever given credit for--and perfect control. His curve didn't break much more than a couple of inches, but he knew when to throw it, and it was enough to keep a batter fidgety.

In my day, the most important item on the catcher's calendar, in addition to his handling of pitches, was throwing out base runners. They ran hard and often. They don't run so much these days. I don't know anything Kling couldn't do. The one catcher today who reminds me of Johnny is Gabby Hartnett. They ought to find a place somewhere for him too."

He explained that he hadn't seen much of Mickey Cochrane and therefore wasn't competent to compare the Detroit receiver with the two he had named.

While he picked Traynor for third base, Wagner had high regard for Jimmy Collins, too, and added him to his team:

"Collins was the first third baseman to field a bunt with his bare hand and throw the ball underhand while running at top speed. The custom before that had been to take the ball with both hands. The next move was to stop and come out of the crouch. It all took time, and when Jimmy came along with his running toss he caught a lot of them before they got wise.

Lajoie was his pick at second base, both for his "efficient and graceful fielding and his heavy hitting." Commenting on his omission of Ruth, Cobb and Speaker from the outfield, Wagner said, "I'll just struggle along with Fred Clarke and Clarence Beaumont of the Pirates and Bill Lange of Chicago.

"Beaumont was a wicked hitter--he topped me by two points one season--and fast! He beat out six infield hits one afternoon, still a record, I guess.

"As for Clarke, he hit .300 or better eleven years and over .400 for two. That entitles him to something, I reckon."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1949, Honus Wagner picked his 3rd All-Time All-Star Team:

In 1949, Honus Wagner picked his 3rd and last All-Time All-Star Team. This time he limited himself to the National League.
He didn't feel qualified to judge AL players he hadn't, for the most part, seen.

1B - Bill Terry
2B - Lajoie/Hornsby
3B - Pie Traynor
SS - left blank
LF - Fred Clarke
CF - Clarence 'Ginger' Beaumont
RF - Willie Keeler
C - Roger Bresnahan/Johnny Kling
P - Christy Mathewson/Cy Young

"I haven't seen much of the American League, but I regard Stan Musial as one of the best young players I have looked at," Wagner says. "I hesitate to pass complete judgment on anyone until he's been in the majors at least ten years."

"When queried about a shortstop for this team, Wagner has a stock reply. "That team wouldn't need a shortstop." he says with a chuckle.
(The Sporting News, March 2, 1949, pp. 7.)

DoubleX

02-20-2005, 08:30 AM

tonypug

02-20-2005, 09:27 AM

torez77

02-20-2005, 10:31 AM

I'm inclined to say Honus is the best, but I always wonder how era effects things. Like if we were to take Honus and put him in today's league with A-Rod, how would he fair? Woud he have that athletic ability and strength of modern players to keep up? I tend to believe that in modern times, athletes from one generation are as a whole, more talented and athletic than athletes of the previous generation. Just picture an olympic race, say the 100 Meters. Pluck someone out of the 1912 Olympics and pit them against someone from the 2004 Olympics, the 2004 guy will leave the 1912 in the dust, probably by a good second. The general mindset of society is to be bigger, better, faster, and stronger so we can outdo what has already been done. In 1912, the goal in the 100 Meters was to break it in 11 seconds (I don't know that, it's just a hypothetical example), once that was broken, the goal became 10.9, then 10.8, then 10.7, and so on, until the athletes work themselves in such away that they are built to break it in a faster time that was once inconceivable.

As always, Double X, you bring up great points. That's why it is so hard to compare players 90 years apart. Sometimes I say, why bother? It's impossible. But here are a few of my thoughts:
When comparing strength and conditioning, common sense tells you there is no doubt A-Rod is the superior athlete to Wagner. Wagner dominated his league (the National League, not the entire MLs) in offensive stats year after year. However, as he neared the end of his career, newer talents such as Cobb, Speaker and Jackson entered the league and eclipsed his stats. The game was growing year by year, and players kept getting better. Wagner was the best during his time, though I think others, such as Lajoie, could be argued were better. Anyway, assuming Wagner was the best in the 1900's, Ty Cobb had come along and taken his throne in the 10's, then Ruth became king in the 20's, and so on through the eras.
Now, putting all speculation and the era and physical differences aside, Wagner dominated his respective league like no other SS ever has. That's why I'll never say A-Rod is better than Wagner. I'll also never come out and say Wagner is better than A-Rod. Consider that A-Rod has done something no other SS has ever done - compile monster HR totals. Consider A-Rod's career numbers when he retires (of course, now he's a 3B, so that may mar his legacy)
What do I believe? I believe it's an interesting argument, and I really don't have an opinion on who's better. I only state what I see, and I'll leave it up to you guys to decide.

Bill Burgess

02-20-2005, 12:31 PM

It is always an interesting subject as to whether or not a baseball player from the 1910 period, or even earlier, could cut it today. While the journeymen of that day probably couldn't cut it today, some no doubt could have.

Heck, the journeymen of 1910 had a hard time cutting it then. But a very few, select players, by concensus - Ewing, Wagner, Cobb, Ruth - could have starred whatever era we droppped them into.

I would go so far as to add others. Speaker, Jackson, Colllins. I have this thing for catchers. Bennet, Kelly, Kling, Schalk, Archer, Bergen. I also happen to believe that Walter Johnson, Matty, Alexander could have done very well too. I also believe that Negro Leaguers Charleston, Mackay, and Lloyd possessed skills which transcended the eras.

Whenever I hear about the Olmpics, track times, 100m times, I must explain this a little. In the times from 1896-1936, those Olympics didn't represent hardly any of the many countries. In 1912, perhaps 20 countries sent teams to the Olmpics. So those sprinters were only from 20 countries, and even then, they only trained perhaps an hour a day, if that. Since the 60's, athletes started training full time, often 3 times a day.

Today, many Kenyan distance runners train all day long. So to compare the track runners from the 1910 world, who hardly trained at all, by comparison, to today's runners, is a fictitious comparison. 1910 world records were artificially slow, due to the runners not training more than an hour a day. Or coming from more than a dozen countries, at best.

Those runners hardly knew anything about modern training methods. Paavo Nurmi didn't have access to vitamin, nutritional suppliments.

One of the things which few consider, is that baseball is not limited to pure speed, strength, reflexes, etc. Baseball includes skills. Intelligence. Instinct. Baseball is as much art as strength. And art is not related to eras. Playing shortstop like Hans Wagner has as much to do with knowing your hitters, and your own pitchers, knowing where the ball will probably go, knowing how to make the play in the best possible way, knowing your DP partners habits, etc. And none of that relates to how fast you can run, how tall you are, or how much you can bench press.

It's the artistry of a play that makes the era you played in irrelevant. A player like Bid McPhee might have been possessed of more playing artistry than later players. Wagner, Bobby Wallace, Herman Long, Buck Ewing, John "Pop" Lloyd, Biz Mackey also. Why should it matter when a guy played shortstop or caught, if they had such magical baseball instincts, feel, rhythm, inner knowingness as to the hitters?

Am I saying that strength, speed, arm, reflexes play no part? No. But that is only the prerequisites, and that they are not enough. They are only the starting point, and one must have much, much more to be a stellar, creative baseball artist. Ozzie Smith had that. Brooks Robinson, Maz, Jim Edmonds, Mays, Bench, I-Rod have these things. In great abundance. I just don't see era as such a critical factor as some others.

Bill Burgess

csh19792001

02-20-2005, 01:08 PM

I'm inclined to say Honus is the best, but I always wonder how era effects things. Like if we were to take Honus and put him in today's league with A-Rod, how would he fair? Woud he have that athletic ability and strength of modern players to keep up?

Agreed on the modern amenities someone else mentioned; Wagner was big on training- one of the first players (perhaps THE first) to train with weights. With all of the modern conveniences- he'd excel.

Just dropping him into 2005 would be as unfair as just dropping A-Rod into a game in 1908, with the deadball, shineball, spitball, emoryball, 450+ CF walls, 400 ft lines, and the myriad of other differences that made the HR style of baseball impossible. How well could he, having grown up playing homerunball, hit behind the runners, sac bunt, bunt for hits, hit the ball the other way, etc. etc.

The point is that both would probably struggle (certainly initially), not because they would not still be enormusly talented, but because the game has changed to a massive degree.

therealnod

02-20-2005, 01:28 PM

Whenever I hear about the Olmpics, track times, 100m times, I must explain this a little. In the times from 1896-1936, those Olympics didn't represent hardly any of the many countries. In 1912, perhaps 20 countries sent teams to the Olmpics. So those sprinters were only from 20 countries, and even then, they only trained perhaps an hour a day, if that. Since the 60's, athletes started training full time, often 3 times a day.

Today, many Kenyan distance runners train all day long. So to compare the track runners from the 1910 world, who hardly trained at all, by comparison, to today's runners, is a fictitious comparison. 1910 world records were artificially slow, due to the runners not training more than an hour a day. Or coming from more than a dozen countries, at best.

Those runners hardly knew anything about modern training methods. Paavo Nurmi didn't have access to vitamin, nutritional suppliments.

There is a valid point in all that; however, there is a statistical reality underlying world record times. Take the mile run. There is a near perfect negative linear correlation between Year and World Record (-0.9948218157...) meaning that with each increase in Year, there is a decrease in the World Record time. The closer to |1| the correlation coefficient is, the stronger the reliability, with 1 or -1 being "perfectly" correlated. So the differences in competition aren't as great as the fact that human are simply getting faster at the mile in a steady, predictable way.

Bill Burgess

02-20-2005, 01:30 PM

SHOELESSJOE3

02-20-2005, 01:42 PM

I'm inclined to say Honus is the best, but I always wonder how era effects things. Like if we were to take Honus and put him in today's league with A-Rod, how would he fair? Woud he have that athletic ability and strength of modern players to keep up?

Would Wagner if dropped into today's game after 90 years of evolution? Doubful imo.

I think when we discuss bringing a past great into todays game, we can't just bring them to the present day "as is."

We would have to consider the fact that they would be born in this time, subject to all the advancements in nutrition, advancements in training, therapy and all the other advancements that todays general population benefits from, that were not available long ago.

Perhaps I miss something in your post, but I alway believe that if we transfer a past great into todays game or we transfer a great of today to the past, they never make the change "as is". Does not sound fair to either. past great or present great going to another time period.

Bill Burgess

02-20-2005, 01:54 PM

Whether we bring Honus to our time, and give him all the modern advantages, or send A-Rod back to 1900-17, and take away all his modern advantages, I just think that Hans brought more to the table. Relative to his times, he hit better, fielded better and ran better. Softer competition? Even so, I believe he was competitive enough to rise to whatever occasion, and beat you.

I may be missing something important, but not near enough to raise A-Rod over him.

Bill Burgess

torez77

02-20-2005, 02:51 PM

I think when we discuss bringing a past great into todays game, we can't just bring them to the present day "as is."

We would have to consider the fact that they would be born in this time, subject to all the advancements in nutrition, advancements in training, therapy and all the other advancements that todays general population benefits from, that were not available long ago.

Perhaps I miss something in your post, but I alway believe that if we transfer a past great into todays game or we transfer a great of today to the past, they never make the change "as is". Does not sound fair to either. past great or present great going to another time period.

I agree, Shoeless Joe, that's probably the best way to do it. But by golly, it's still a tough comparison.

SHOELESSJOE3

02-20-2005, 06:53 PM

antihipster

02-20-2005, 08:21 PM

Comparing w/ my Era Adjusted Value {EAV} [ob/lgob/pf][slg/lgslg/pf][ops/lgops/pf], these players rank.

Wagner
.391 ob%/.321 lg ob%=121.807 ob eav [120.481 ob eav w/pf]
.467 slg%/.339 lg slg%=137.758 slg eav [136.259 slg eav w/pf]
.858 ops/.660 lg ops=130.000 ops eav[129.870 w/pf]

22 Years
11,402 AB
2,792 games
.327 BA
101 HR
4862 TB
http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wagneho01.shtml

A-ROD
.381 ob%/.343 lg ob%=111.079 ob eav [109.870 ob eav w/pf]
.574 slg%/.433 slg %=132.564 slg eav [131.122 slg eav w/pf]
.955 ops/.776 lg ops=123.067 ops eav [121.723 ops eav w/pf]

11 Years
6229 AB
1430 Games
.305 BA
381 HR
3207 TB
http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rodrial01.shtml

I would definately pick Wagner right now, basically because of sustaining a very high value while playing for a long twenty two years. A-Rod's numbers are pretty close in percentage, but he has not played nearly as many years. Wagner was a lot more versatile than A-Rod, but Wagner played in the Dead Ball Era and A-Rod is in this current Home Run crazed Era. A-Rod's non-relative stats may be higher, but it does not document the higher value of Wagner. Sure, A-Rod may end up having the greatest homerun count ever.Barring injury, A-Rod's value will more than likely start dropping. As a result, A-Rod's value will probably dip lower and Wagner's potential net gain will more than likely be for certain.

DoubleX

02-20-2005, 09:17 PM

I'm just curious. Is there anyone on Fever who DOESN'T have Honus Wagner in their top 5 players of all time? Anyone at all. And I'd like to hear what their argument is. What 5 would they consider better over-all to Hans?

Anyone at all?

Bill Burgess

I'm sure I'm inviting flack for this, but I might consider Wagner outside of my top 5. I say might, because I'm not really sure and my lists are always in flux. For sure, I have Ruth, Cobb, and Mays ahead of Wagner. Others I might consider to be ahead of Wagner depending on what day of the week it is, are Williams, Gehrig, Mantle, Musial, and even Aaron. Bonds is someone else I'd probably have ahead of Wagner, except I no longer know what to make of Bonds and how to assess his career. All and all, I'd say for sure that Wagner is somewhere between 4 and 8, depending when you ask me. If I come up with any concrete arguments for any of these players I'll be sure to post them.

Bill Burgess

02-20-2005, 10:43 PM

Edgartohof

02-20-2005, 11:06 PM

Guys like Wagner and Cobb would dominate in any era, and with the way home runs are flying since 1993 (broken bat homers, little guys going the opposite way, Brady Anderson hitting 50....), etc, ad infinitum, Ruth might hit 1000 homers if he played today.

Which can be backed up by the fact that a player such as Ichiro is dominating in the game, with no HR power.

As a sidenote, please no one get offended, as I am not trying to insenuate that Ichiro is at the level of Cobb or Wagner, I was just using him as an example to support the above statement. :D

leecemark

02-20-2005, 11:59 PM

--I think Rodriguez had a chance to surpass Honus. Sadly that contest won't happen as A-Rod has been moved to a position where his hitting would have to improve to make up for the lower defensive value at 3B.

DoubleX

02-21-2005, 09:49 AM

DoubleX,

I'm surprised that you'd be so unsure. If one ranks Ruth, Cobb, Mays over Hans, nobody would bother to argue. But the others would provoke a response, since we're talking overall, not hitting only. Dutchman's strength is he had no weaknesses. He was so uniformly strong in hitting, fielding and running, that he gives no foothold for taking points away.

The one poster I assumed would pick up the challenge was Imapotato, based on league weakness. I never guess right.

Bill Burgess

I weight era heavily, that's why I mentioned Mays, Mantle and Aaron, they get era boosts against Wagner.

Anyway, like I said, I don't really have any conviction for any of these guys, but if I had to give a reason why I'd pick them:

Williams - Second best hitter ever, gets an era boost.
Gehrig - Third best hitter ever (though does not really get an era boost)
Mantle - Could do everything well and was an extremely dominant hitter at his best. Loses points due to wasting some of his enormous potential, but gets a huge era boost.
Musial - Generally underrated. Could do a bit of everything well and gets an era boost. Though I'm pretty sure I have him behind Wagner.
Aaron - Generally overrated by the casual fan, generally underrated by the hardcore fans. He could do everything well and his amazing career totals are too good to overlook (yes he hung around for a long time, but its a testament to how good and unique a player he was that he is the only one who could play a long career and put up his career numbers). Big era boost as well.
Bonds - If Bonds was able to do what he's done without Balco, I'd say he's firmly in my top 4. Otherwise, he's just a poor mans Willie Mays (which is still very good, but probably outside the top 10)

Bill Burgess

02-21-2005, 06:20 PM

Wagner was timed in 3.4 going down to first, and once did a 100 yd. dash in 10. flat, in baseball uniform and spikes.

Bill Burgess

Imapotato

02-21-2005, 09:29 PM

Bill-
Yeah- the pictures of Cobb in "smoked glasses" in the early 20's is reminiscent of his last .400 season.

Speaking of eyes...how about Sisler!!! So aggravating. He hit the last 7 years of his career partially blind.

Chris

Sisler? Pffft!

What about Chick Hafey? Many statheadz say he shouldn't be in the HOF without looking closer and seeing he was LEGALLY blind, had to keep 3 pairs of glasses on him, depending how good or bad his eyes were that day...and still was one of the top hitters of his day in all aspects!

As for Wagner, even knowing Wagner's AFTER baseball life and how he became a sorry sad shell of a man, A-Rod still couldn;t wear his glove.

Honus, if you didn't know became a drunk later as a coach, and would take a game ball into a tavern and attempt to barter it for a drink, he would say it loud enough until someone recognized him and bought Honus a drink, then he would go to the next bar and rinse and repeat

OH AND HIYA BILL!!!!!!!

For one to look at how WEAK the NL was during Honus time, let's start with the brightest examples....John Burkett, Topsy Hartsel, Emmet Heidrick and Bobby Wallace. In 1901 they dominated the game, Burkett was top 5 in EVERY category...Wallace hit .300+, Hartsel was tops in steals, Hrs etc.

Next year those players go to Lajoie's and Cy Young's American League...Burkett and Wallace never again gained those heights, not with tougher competition...Heidrick soon was gone and Hartsel was displaced by the A's. I mean Sam Crawford hit 16 Hrs in the NL in 1901!
Jimmy Sheckard a triple crown canidate in 1901...jumped to the Orioles the JUMPED back...because the AL was too hard.

Elmer Flick and Ed Delahanty...the only competition for greatest NL player not on Honus' own team, jumped to the A's and Nationals after 1901...so who did Wagner have to face until Sherry Magee came around?

Also the best players were on the Pirates...until the Cubs and Giants became dominant...and even when they did, could any team match the futility of the Phillies, Beaneaters, Reds and Cardinals? The AL had the Senators and Browns and then tough competition. The Nl had the Giants, Cubs and Pirates...and that's it....so Honus got to pad his stats more than Lajoie

Wagner had a nice 5 year of weak NL teams to feast on, before the AL and NL settled League Jumpers,..HOWEVER, his best season is in the midst of unity and a level field between two leagues.

Honus truly is an enigma wrapped in a puzzle...yes he was great, but I really think he takes thunder away from what may be a top 5 player in Nap Lajoie

Bill Burgess

02-21-2005, 11:29 PM

Imapotato,

G'day, mate! Always warm to chat over beers. Allow me to defer to you on all you said. I won't even challenge your argument. Let's say I trust you. The NL was crappy. All I can say is, "So what?"

If God gives a man all the tools, and he does everything he can to not waste his potential, Is it Wagner's fault that God took all his competition away? Does that lower his skills, potential or stature? That was beyond his control. All he could do was keep playing his game, and not let down. This he did as well as any man could do.

So why should we devalue him, or discount his game, just because his league was not up to standards. Would you discount Ruth's value, if his league had been drained of its best talent? Why would we?

Unlike you, I can't minimize or marginalize a man's greatness, just because they were not allowed to demonstrate their gifts against the best available. Wasn't up to them. Same argument as to the Negro Leagues. You withhold credit because they were forbidden to prove their greatness against the best.

By your reasoning, all we would need to do to screw a player out of their just value, is force them to play against inferior competition. Then you can say, they didn't play against the best!

Feels so unfair to me. Think it always will feel unjust. To me.

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

02-22-2005, 08:39 AM

I'm sure I'm inviting flack for this, but I might consider Wagner outside of my top 5. I say might, because I'm not really sure and my lists are always in flux. For sure, I have Ruth, Cobb, and Mays ahead of Wagner. Others I might consider to be ahead of Wagner depending on what day of the week it is, are Williams, Gehrig, Mantle, Musial, and even Aaron. Bonds is someone else I'd probably have ahead of Wagner, except I no longer know what to make of Bonds and how to assess his career. All and all, I'd say for sure that Wagner is somewhere between 4 and 8, depending when you ask me. If I come up with any concrete arguments for any of these players I'll be sure to post them.Aaron barely beat Honus in OPS+, and Honus is a doggone SS, NOT a corner OF who BETTER hit

DoubleX

02-22-2005, 09:54 AM

Aaron barely beat Honus in OPS+, and Honus is a doggone SS, NOT a corner OF who BETTER hit

I'm aware, but thats where the era boost comes into play. I look at it this way - Honus was great in a league of freshman teams; Aaron and the others I mentioned from his generation (Mantle, Mays, and Musial and Williams to a lesser extent), were great in a league of varsity teams. But anyway, like I said, I don't definitely put Aaron ahead of Wagner, I just might consider him ahead of Wagner on any given day. The only players I have for sure ahead of Wagner are Ruth, Cobb, and Mays (and Bonds with a large asterisk); and then I would consider in the following order: Williams, Gehrig, Mantle, Musial, Aaron (Hornsby would be somewhere in there too, ranking ahead of some of these and behind other, but I don't think I'd ever put him ahead of Wagner). If you ask me today where I'd rank Wagner, I'd probably say he's 6th behind Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Williams, and Gehrig, tomorrow he could just as easily be 4th though.

Imapotato

02-23-2005, 01:36 AM

Imapotato,

G'day, mate! Always warm to chat over beers. Allow me to defer to you on all you said. I won't even challenge your argument. Let's say I trust you. The NL was crappy. All I can say is, "So what?"

If God gives a man all the tools, and he does everything he can to not waste his potential, Is it Wagner's fault that God took all his competition away? Does that lower his skills, potential or stature? That was beyond his control. All he could do was keep playing his game, and not let down. This he did as well as any man could do.

So why should we devalue him, or discount his game, just because his league was not up to standards. Would you discount Ruth's value, if his league had been drained of its best talent? Why would we?

Unlike you, I can't minimize or marginalize a man's greatness, just because they were not allowed to demonstrate their gifts against the best available. Wasn't up to them. Same argument as to the Negro Leagues. You withhold credit because they were forbidden to prove their greatness against the best.

By your reasoning, all we would need to do to screw a player out of their just value, is force them to play against **** competition. Then you can say, they didn't play against the best!

Feels so unfair to me. Think it always will feel unjust. To me.

Bill Burgess

Not a thing sir!

Which is why I brought up Honus' best season was in a normalized NL

BUT

the beef I DO have is that Nap Lajoie gets the shaft BIGTIME...because he is dismissed as being in the "expansion" league. Cy Young does as well

Nap is one of the best 10 players in the history of baseball...and if he didn't manage, and didn't have the burden of playing on a team NAMED after him (how many players can say that? none!) we may have debates here on whether Cobb, Ruth, Mays,Williams or Lajoie was the best of all time

Bill Burgess

02-23-2005, 07:03 AM

Potato,

Alright then. Looks like we're on the same page again. As per normal. Scuse me for sounding a tad fiesty. Must be the coffee.

Bill Burgess

Metal Ed

02-24-2005, 05:48 PM

Chris,

Babe on steroids? That would indeed be interesting. Normally, steroids assist the muscles to grow and get stronger when working out in the weight room.

I'm not sure how they would work without working out, but gorging on a dozen hotdogs, a platter of pig knuckles, while puffing on a stogie, and washing them all down with a pitcher of Rupperts beer, while screwing a couple of babes. But . . . with Ruth's luck, it just might work fine.

Or . . . they simply might make him more agressive in the whore houses, and screw all the babes, instead of just his normal two.

Bill Burgess

HAHAHAHA :)

BTW, I don't have Honus Wagner in my top 5. But you could probably have guessed that about me.

Honus Wagner Rules

04-14-2005, 08:23 PM

Can't let everyone else have all the fun. :D It just didn't seem right that tHe Flying Dutchman didn't have his own thread. Here's a short bio...

John Peter Wagner was born in Carnegie, Pennsylvania on February 24, 1874. He was one of nine children born to Catherine and Peter Wagner. Peter Wagner, an immigrant from Bavaria, worked in the coalmines to support his family. From the age 12 until age 16, Wagner worked in the mines with his father. At age 16, Wagner left the mines to work briefly for his brother Charley, who had a barbershop. Wagner's passion was baseball and his brother Al got him a shot with Steubenville, Ohio's team in the Tri-State League. Wagner was an outfielder and was paid $35 per month. He was an instant success and advanced to Patterson, New Jersey in the Atlantic League where he caught the eye of Louisville, Kentucky - then a member of the National League. Louisville managed to buy Wagner's contract from Patterson for $800.

Wagner began his major league career as an outfielder for Louisville in 1897 and hit .338 that year. When the Louisville franchise folded following the 1899 season, owner Barney Dreyfuss bought Pittsburgh and asked Wagner to go with him. Wagner went to Pittsburgh and became one of the greatest Pirates ever. He hit .381 in 1900 and won his first of eight National League batting titles. Wagner helped the Pirates win three consecutive National League pennants in 1901, 1902, and 1903.

In 1903, Wagner finally became a full-time shortstop after playing all over the field for many years. That year he helped the Pirates to win the first World Series ever played and picked up a batting title of his own. Wagner was bow-legged and stocky so he didn't look like an average shortstop. His opponents were amazed with his defensive skills. Wagner topped the National League in doubles seven times, in slugging six times, in RBIs five times, and in stolen bases five times. In 1909, Wagner helped the Pirates win yet another pennant. The Pirates also won the World Series Championship in 1909 after beating the Detroit Tigers in seven games.

Wagner was still a good player at age 42 and closed out his career in 1917 with a batting average of .265. When he retired, Wagner led the National League in hits, runs, triples, doubles, and singles. Next, Wagner coached baseball at Carnegie Tech and operated a sporting goods store with Pie Traynor. In 1933, the new Pittsburgh Pirate owner Bill Benswanger offered Wagner a coaching position. Wagner coached the Pirates for nineteen years beginning in 1933.

He collected 3430 hits, 720 stolen bases and a lifetime batting average of .329 during his 21-year career in the National League. In 1936, Wagner was one of the first of five men elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Wagner died on December 6, 1955 in Carnegie, Pennsylvania and is buried at Jefferson Memorial in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Honus Wagner Rules

04-14-2005, 08:28 PM

Interesting tidbits:

-Honus was 34-years old before he played one postion for the whole season.
-Honus played in the first baseball game under lights on July 4th 1896. An exhibition in Wilmington was conducted under temporary lights using a larger, softball-size ball. The game was poorly played as high flies were lost outside the shine of the lights. The game ended as a farce, as the wildly gyrating pitcher delivered an exploding firecracker ball that Honus hit and destroyed.
-Prior to 1901, foul balls did not count as strikes.
-June 20, 1901: Honus becomes the first player in the 20th century to steal home twice in a single game.
-Wagner was the regular right fielder for the Bucs in the 1900 season. He didn't make his first start at shortstop until July 27, 1901 (replacing Fred Ely's .200 BA).
-Honus was the first player to have his signature branded into a Louisville Slugger: Sept 1905 (p 140).
-Tommy Leach asked for an arbitrator to hear his salary dispute in 1908; it is a popular venue today, but Leach was 65 years ahead of his time.
-Overflow crowds would stand behind ropes in the outfield. Many times, the crowd would swell and reduce the playing field dimensions. Rules varied, but some balls hit into the outfield crowd were awarded only two bases at times.
-Second baseman John Miller picked up the nickname of "Dots", when a local writer asked Wagner who was at second, and Wagner replied, "That's Miller", which sounded like "Dots" to the local scribe.
-Honus signed a contract to help coach the Pirates in 1933. He worked with Arky Vaughan on charging slow hit grounders. Vaughan and Wagner roomed together on the road for 9 seasons; today, their Hall of Fame plaques share a room in Cooperstown NY.
-Honus started his coaching days wearing #36. In 1940, he switched to #33. -In 1952, the Bucs retired their first uniform number ever - Honus' #33.
-Fred Clarke said prior to the 1909 World Series, "Pennants are not won by managerial hot air or by newspapers. Championships are won on the grass."

The Splendid Splinter

04-14-2005, 10:23 PM

Wagner is number 2 in my all time players list. Behind Cobb and in front of Ruth.

julusnc

04-15-2005, 10:48 AM

--That poster is kind of a surprise. The reason Honus' baseball card is so rare and valuable is because it was issued by a tabacco company and Wagner so strongly objected to being used to advertise it that he sued to prevent them from issuing any more.

Actually it is no suprise to me.I have been to over 200 sprotscard exhibitions over 25 years as a dealer and buyer.I remember seeing a vintage Old Mill brand tobacco framed poster depicting Honus Wagner, a cigar box from Hindu brand tabacco, a Pirates tin tobacco brand (honus and Fred Clarke were both on the tin lid), a Red Apple Plug tobacco brand poster and several others.

I have read many articles concerning the T206 card set and he claims made by some that he objected to being in a tobacco product but Honus Wagner was in numerous tobacco related series of cards and inserts before 1909 and after.Honus Wagner's last "offical" card produced in 1948 by the Leaf Gum Co. depicts Wagner with a chaw of tobacco being placed into his jaw.

I remember one last tobacco advertisement depicting Honus called Smithy's Snuff.I saw this advertised in a auction in Sports Collector's Digest some years ago. Also when noted hobbiest Barry Halper sold his collection about 7 years ago he had uncut tobacco proofs of "Flying Dutchman" Cigars.The box and label had a likeness of Honus Wagner but his name was not on the product.The product was distributed because along with the proofs Mr Halper had a wooden crate with the Wagner likeness.

julusnc

04-15-2005, 10:58 AM

John Peter Wagner at bat (photo, 1908-15)

An extremely rare photo of Honus Wagner, a right handed hitter, batting left handed. Hall of Fame catcher Roger Bresnahan is also shown in this photo, making it even more disirable. This photo was shown to SABR (The Society for American Baseball Research), where both Wagner and Bresnahan were identified in the photo.They said that Wagner did, on very rare occasions, bat left handed out of frustration, when he was having a particularly bad day at the plate. This is the only known photo of him hitting from the left side. This at bat was captured at the Polo Grounds during a Giants-Pirates game on Sept. 18, 1908.

Honus Wagner Rules

04-15-2005, 03:36 PM

From Bill James Historical Abstract:

Wagner’s 1908 season ranks, by the Win Shares system, as the greatest season of the 20th century; even Babe Ruth never matched it. Why? Well, Wagner hit .354 and drove in 109 runs. This is no big deal; Wagner hit .354 and drove in 109 runs pretty much every year. In baseball history there are lots of guys who hit .350 and drove in 150 runs. What makes Wagner different is (a) defense and (b) a quite exceptional ratio of wins to runs scored.

The National League ERA in 1908 was 2.35-the lowest of the dead ball era, the lowest ERA for a league in the 20th century.

In modern baseball, the league ERAs are just about twice that, about 4.70. So double those numbers: if you had a shortstop, like Wagner, who drove in 218 runs, what would that be worth?

In additon to that, the Pirates were playing in the poorest hitter’s park, which reduced scoring by 16%…In the context, where runs were extremely scarce, Wagner led the National League in hits (201), doubles (by 30%), in triples, in total bases (by 40), in stolen bases (53), in runs created (by 28%), in batting average (by 20 points), in RBIs, in on base percentage (.415), and in slugging percentage (by almost 100 points). He was second in home runs and runs scored. At shortstop, he led the league in putouts, by 40. Even Babe Ruth never had as much impact on the game he was playing as Honus Wagner did in that one season. (page 548-549)

Bill Burgess

04-15-2005, 05:46 PM

A Word on Wagner:

Honus Wagner, 1897-1916, was the greatest fielder in the MLs, the greatest hitter in the league, the greatest basestealer and baserunner in the league for around over 10 years.

John McGraw said that they could never determine his highest point of superiority, his hitting, running or fielding. He said that if he had a hitting weakness, they never discovered it.

Wagner was called the greatest player ever by:
McGraw, Bill Klem, Sam Crawford, Ed Barrow, John Gruber, George Moreland, Branch Rickey, Lou Gehrig, Johny Evers, Bill McKechnie, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Burke, Jimmy Sheckard, Tommy Leach, Babe Adams, Ed Roush, Paul Waner, Ralph Davis, Barney Dreyfuss, Jim Long. I haven't found quotes from Mathewson, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Ginger Beaumont, Johnny Kling, Grover Alexander, Joe McGinnity, Joe Tinker, and others of his peers.

Honus won 8 BA. titles, 6 SLG. titles, 5 SB titles, 5 RBI titles, 7 Total Bases titles, and 4 OBA titles.

Many such as Joe McCarthy and Cobb called him a perfect player. This meaning that there were no skills on a ballfield that he lacked. And to an extreme degree. And tempermentally, Wagner was as sweet-natured as they come. And on top of it all, he was a shortstop without weaknesses. He could go into the hole behind 3rd or 2nd, go aloft, and had a rifle for an arm (he pitched 2 games), and was death on grounders, bunts or liners anywhere near him.

But it doth my heart glad to hear an enlightened few give up the props and render forth to Honus that which belongs to Wagner.

For Gehrig or Hornsby or A-Rod to match the Matchless One, they would have had to have been the best hitter, fielder & baserunner in the MLs for around 10 years, and I think time ran out on them 80 yrs. ago, and A-Rod isn't be the best runner in the league and Bonds is the best hitter, so he's out too.

Three places where Hans has received his due credit are:

1. Bill James' Historical Abstract. 1988, pp. 384-385.

2. Baseball's All Time Dream Team, by John P. McCarthy, Jr., 1994, pp. 64.

3. The Diamond Appraised, by Craig R. Wright and Tom House, 1989, pp. 367-409. The Wagner segment is taken by Craig R. Wright.

In the 3rd book, it's alleged that Honus was once timed in 3.4 seconds, going from home to 1st, from the right-handed batters box.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honus/Babe:

Hans has many, many BB virtues which Babe could only dream about.

1. Babe outslugged Hans, with the aid of an era factor that was impossible to overcome. But considering his era, Hans also slugged great. 6 SLG. titles.

2. Hans was arguably the finest all-around fielder who ever lived. He wasn't the finest defensive SS, but he was very close to the finest. Ozzie Smith, Herman Long, Bobby Wallace and Glenn Wright may have shaded him for that honor, but only by the barest of margins. But they couldn't be played at 1B, 3B, OF as easy as Hans, and shined. Hans made impossible miracles happen with his glove. Up the middle, behind 3B, short LF. His arm was a campfire legend all its own. They still refer to it in Pittsburg.

3. Hans was one of the great runners of history. 5 SB titles.

4. Hans was one of the great hitters of history. 8 BA. titles, 6 SLG. titles, 5 RBI titles, 7 Total Bases titles, and 4 OBA titles.

5. Hans without a doubt was the greatest Offensive/Defensive combo Player of All Time, with the great Willie Mays, and then possibly Tris Speaker, following. Hans ranks higher due to positional importance.

6. Although many believe that Babe Ruth's bat makes up for all these miracles, Babe could only outslug the Flying Dutchman. But how can anyone know or prove how well Wagner would have adusted to the lifely ball? He was a powerhouse unto himself. Could he have more value to his team? Depends who you'd ask.

From '00-10, Honus was thought the greatest ever, until Cobb nudged him aside. But even then, he held onto his 2nd ranking from 1910-50.

On Feb. 4, 1950, in NYC, the Associated Press, announced the results of its poll of its members, with respect to baseball. Ruth 253, Cobb 116, Gehrig 8, W. Johnson 7, DiMaggio 5, Wagner 2, Mathewson 2.

By contrast, in its April 2, 1942 edition, Sporting News conducted its own survey, of those who HAD seen them all, and Ty got 61 votes, Honus 17 and Babe 11, Hornsby 2, 10 players received 1 vote each: Delehanty, Gehrig, Speaker, DiMaggio, Ott, Sisler, E. Collins, Johnson, Mathewson, Jerry Denny.

This survey supported the 1936 Hall of Fame vote:
Original Hall of Fame vote, Feb. 2, 1936, votes counted at the Commissioner's office in Chicago, IL. 226 Total Voters; Cobb 222, Wagner 215, Ruth 215, Mathewson 205, Johnson 189, Lajoie 146, Speaker 133, Young 111, Hornsby 105, Cochrane 80, Sisler 77, E. Collins 60, J. Collins 58, Alexander 55, Gehrig 51.

Of course, most folks have been told, and believe, that The Babe is the greatest player ever, and by a gigantic degree, but that is only because the game has evolved in a Ruthian direction, and away from a Wagnerian/Cobbian one.

But you will have to make that determination for yourself.

PS. I judge folks BB chops/smarts by how they rank Wagner primarily, and Cobb secondarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wagner: Greatest Offense/Defense Combo:

From 1900-10, Honus Wagner was arguably the best hitter, fielder, and runner in baseball. Which establishes him as a true baseball god. One of the top 2, IMHO, after TC.

Cobb, due to his fielding, could never make that claim.
Babe, due to his running/fielding could never make that assertion.

So, I got to thinking, could anyone else ever make that exalted claim?
I think some players might have been able to make such a limited claim for a certain, select season or two. Arguably. Can anyone think of a season, where a player was ARGUABLY the best hitter, fielder, runner in baseball.

I came up with Mays & Bonds.

I define best fielder as the best at your position.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wagner over Mays:

From 1900-1910, Wagner achieved an almost impossible feat. On the whole, he was the best hitter, fielder and runner in his league. Others may have had a better year than he did in one of the skills, but overall - he was dominant.

Now, I am fully informed that someone will immediately post that the only reason Honus could do that was due to the chronic weakness in the NL, due to the incessant AL raids. And they may be quite right on that. But does anyone doubt that Hans couldn't have done that even if his league had stayed strong? Holding a man responsible for the inherent weakness of his competition is so wrong.

Many players only play as good as they have to to win, and can improve their game if their rivals push them. Like Cobb/Jackson, 1911-13, or Ruth/Gehrig, '27.

In hitting, Wagner led his league so many more times than Willie in hitting categories that it isn't even funny. Now I am also aware, that Willie had to contend with a level of competition in the 1950-60's, mostly in the form of fellow black players, that Hans didn't face.

Honus may have appeared easy-going, but beneath the Lincolnesque facade, burned an intensely competitive spirit. Could he have remained supreme, if John "Pop" Lloyd had been in the NL? I think he could have, and if you know me, I'm saying a mouthful! So that is how highly I regard Wagner!

Fielding: I must consider Wagner much the better fielder, because the best SS is better defensively than the best CF. Mays had rivals in Ashburn. Even considering Richie's fly-ball throwing pitching staff. Mays had a much bigger OF turf to patrol in the Polo Ground, which allows more flys to be caught, up to '57. If Mays was as good a fielder, he'd have been an infielder. No one good enough to handle the infield, especially SS, is assigned the gardens. You put your sluggish sluggers there. Willie wasn't sluggish, by any means, but not agile enough to handle an infield post, surely not SS.

To those who cry foul, at comparing a SS with an OF, let me remind you, that SS is a far more demanding post than CF, and requires more defensive talent.

I wouldn't call Honus the best fielding SS of his day. Bobby Wallace was probably better, but not by a lot. Very slight margin.

Running: Again, I must rate Hans over Willie. Yes, Wilie ran very well, but Hans was one of the all time runners. Willie was not. And when a SS runs that well, that is something. Simply because we lack SB% in his era, we can't assume that Wagner was a poor % runner. Hans was expected to run, while Willie was not. So I do give Mays extra bonus points, but not nearly enough to overcome Wagner's SB totals. Hans is still 10th all time, with 722 SB. Hans was leading a league of base stealers 5 times, while Willie was leading a league of non-runners 4 times.

Honus Wagner--BA---Hits--2B---3B---HR Runs---RBI---TB---OBA--SLG.--SB
Led league------8-----2----7----3----0----2------5-----7----4-----6---5

Willie Mays---BA---Hits---2B---3B---HR---Runs---RBI---TB---OBA---SLG.--SB
Led league----1----1------0----3----4----2------0------3----2------5----4

Although Willie led his league in homers 4 times, Honus finished in the top 5 in homers 4 times. It is easy to see at a glance that in hitting, both super-stars are among the elite hitters. Their stats cut across the board, in the same way as Cobb, Hornsby, Bonds and several others. They didn't merely bunch their good numbers in a few power categories, but cuts across the boards.

And they both star at both ends, actually are triple threats. But Wagner edges Willie in defense/running, and holds him to a draw in hitting. Hans weaker league is compensated for, by leading it much more often, as he needed to do, given the discrepancy in league strength.

Summary: Honus in all 3 categories. We cannot assume that Wagner would have been found wanting in power, had he been accorded his chances.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cobb/Wagner:

1. Honus was the greatest all-around fielder baseball has yet produced, IMHO.
But he was never considered the final word at SS defense, and was always considered below Herman Long, Bobby Wallace, Glenn Wright and Ozzie Smith, strickly for SS D. But better than them in over-all D.

2. Ty was always considered more than a little better at the plate, and on the bags. On the bags, Cobb was supreme, the best BB has yet produced, with no apologies to Hamilton, Carey, Brock, Henderson or Wills. The Supreme disrupter, above Lange or J. Robinson.

3. Wagner's league was weaker than Cobb's until 1908, but Wagner sustained a higher level of league dominance for longer.

4. Cobb had a more dramatic psychological effect on his opposition, but Wagner had a better harmonizing effect in the clubhouse.

5. From the historical record, many, many more great players would have rathered to have Cobb on board than Honus, including Collins, Speaker, Sisler, Mack, Simmons, Cochrane, Grove, etc. People who had seen him up close and personal, and been on teams with him. My files have many who had seen Wagner for an extended time, knew what he could do, and called Cobb better, in VERY direct terms. I can provided some cool quotes, if requested.

Overall, Ty's superiority on the bags, and at the plate, more than compensates for any deficit a fantastic SS can create afield, over a very, very good CF, the best base-runner, and a considerably better hitter.

And Wagner would be the 2nd player I'd pick in a draft. Walter Johnson my 3rd. It would just kill me to NOT have all 3 on my team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wagner/Lloyd

Two of the most scintillating, glittering lights BB ever produced. I have Wagner as my #2 man all-time, and Pop's my #10th. Bill James has Wagner as his #2 also, and Pop is his #22.

I always laugh when someone puts Williams ahead of Honus. Or Gehrig. Anyone who doesn't have Wagner in their top 5, should be, well, ignored. Wagner was a BB god, and bad things happen to those who refuse to properly honor and render piety to the gods. Thank God all well-read posters here have him in their top 5. But most aren't familiar enough with John Lloyd to give him his justice. So let's try to compare the two. And that's not easy.

John Henry Lloyd was born Aril 15, 1884, and made it to semi-pro by 1905, at age of 21.
He started as a catcher. He traveled the negro leagues pretty well. In 1907, his manager switched him from 2B to SS. It wasn't unusual for him to go south every winter, ending up playing 12 months a yr. He played the position so well, that they called him the "Black Honus Wagner". Wagner, after watching Lloyd play, switched the compliment to, "It's a privilege to have been compared to hm."

From 1907-10, he played each winter in Cuba, and in Nov.- Dec., 1910, the Detroit Tigers visited Cuba for a set of 12 games. Initially, Cobb didn't want to go. But when the Cuban promoters offered an additional $1,000. bonus, plus travel expenses. He said, "I decided to break my own rule for a few games."

Crawford, Mullin and all the starting Tiger pitchers went along. Plus O'Leary,
Willet, Moriarty, T. Jones, Casey, Stanage, McIntyre, Schaefer went along. Mullen also managed. The Cubans were joined by black US stars, Bruce Petway, Pete Hill, Grant Johnson and Pop Lloyd, sometimes called the black Honus Wagner. Cobb dilly-dallied in Key West before he arrived in Havana, on Nov. 26, by which time, the Tigers had gone 3-3-1 with the black ballplayers. With Cobb they finished, 7-4-1. In the last game, Mendez fanned Ty once, Ty got a single, and Petway threw him out at 2nd when he tried to steal. For 5 games, Ty went 7 x 19= .370. Crawford hit .360 in 12 games, and Lloyd hit .500, Johnson .412, and Petway
.390, all against top ML pitching.

So, as a point of comparison, Wagner played a set of 7 games against the 1909 Tigers, basicly the same bunch that Lloyd played a year later. And Wagner managed a .333 BA. against the same pitching Lloyd hit .500 against.

Lloyd played against McGraws Giants in 1913, McGraw toyed with bringing him into the NL. That's how impressed Little Napoleon was with him. At 5'11, 180, he was acknowleged as one of the campfire legends of the game. By 1918, he started managing/playing, which he continued until he retired in 1931, at age 47. By then he had switched to 1B, but could still hit. He settled in Atlantic City, NJ, married in '44. He continued to fool around with semi-pro until he was 58, playing 1B. Esquire magazine did a story on him in '38, bringing him to the attention of the white fans. He became a janitor in the Atlantic City post office, and in the mid-30's, became school janitor at the Indiana Avenue school. The kids all loved him and called him Pop. He died on March 19, 1965 in Atlantic City at age 80.

Men like Mack, McGraw and Hughie Jennings all called him among the best players in BB history. In various yrs., he often hit around .450.

Ultimately, I have to give it to Wagner, since without verifiable stats against qualified opposition, I can't assume Lloyd was better, or even as good. This brief summary was culled from Marty Appel's fantastic book, Baseball's Best, 1980, pp. 413-414.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my contribution to the Honus Wagner General Thread. About time he got his own thread.

Bill Burgess

Honus Wagner Rules

04-16-2005, 02:13 PM

Bill,

Dream match-up, Honus vs Cobb in a 40 yard dash! Who would win? :D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honus,

I don't know. Both were quick in their getaway. One of Ty's great virtues was his speed. He could get to 1st in 3.3 from the LH side of the batter's box, while Honus was timed in 3.4 from the RH side. It was often said that Ty could achieve top speed in 3-4 steps. That might be an exaggeration but you get the idea.

Ty was said to have ran a 10.0 100 yd. dash, on a FB field, BB uniform, cleats. But I'd bet a lot of MLers could have beaten him over a straight 100. Ty's skill was in long leads, quick getaway, eel-like slides, tight turns in getting around the bags.

I couldn't in good conscouse give it to Ty or Hans. I'd say a draw. Cause they all said that Dutchman could cover ground too. So, can't say. Great question!

Bill

Imapotato

04-16-2005, 09:49 PM

A Word on Wagner:

2. Hans was arguably the finest all-around fielder who ever lived. He wasn't the finest defensive SS, but he was very close to the finest. Ozzie Smith, Herman Long, Bobby Wallace and Glenn Wright may have shaded him for that honor, but only by the barest of margins. But they couldn't be played at 1B, 3B, OF as easy as Hans, and shined. Hans made impossible miracles happen with his glove. Up the middle, behind 3B, short LF. His arm was a campfire legend all its own. They still refer to it in Pittsburg.

There are many of his peers that would beg to differ as well
Joe Tinker...had slightly less range but MUCH softer hands, thus a better F%
likewise Rabbit Maranville (greatest defensive SS IMO, Glenn Wright? nah..lower than Honus)

On ething that makes all these SS look great is also their teammates

Herman Long, had great defense all around him, as did Honus (Long had Collins at 3b, Bobby Lowe at 2n and I think Joe Kelley at 1B) Honus had Tommy Leach (arguably the best Fielding 3b of his time) Lil Alright at 2b and Kitty Bransfield at 1b...Maranville had the greatest fielding 2b of his time George Cutshaw and that was it...yet when he became a Pirate his RF increased....hmmmm

So all and all you have to go by F% a great deal for old time SS' because RF can be altered since all fielders have great range thus there is no need to 'range' over behind 2nd or 3rd because those players are capable of fielding them, thereby RF increases

Now look at George McBride, terrible fielders all around him, and his RF is not as good as what many state thus he had to try and make many more players and fail thus letting it go into the OF...so his RF decreased

This can also be used to guys like Hal Chase, Homer Smoot, Dode Paskert...and many other fielders by eye witness accounts were great fielders, yet their RF looks horrid

Honus Wagner Rules

04-18-2005, 11:55 AM

It is my strong belief that The Flying Dutchman had he been born 20 years later would have been a 500-700 HR man. He's a quote from his latest biography, Honus Wagner: a Biography. This is from a game in 1903.

At Brooklyn on June 30th, Wagner had a second consecutive four hit game. He tripled, drove in four runs, scored three times, and his 450-foot home run over the centerfield fence was heralded as one of the longest ever hit at Washington Park.

The ball used in 1903 was a "softball" compared to today's modern ball.

Also form the same biography is this:
Late in the 1910 season, the cork-center baseball was introduced to the big leagues. Although a far cry from the lively ball used today, the new ball was a bit more springy than the rubber-center one. For the first time, fans were treated to the crack of the bat, rather than the thud that resulted from what Wagner described as hitting “a chunk of mud.” If there was any doubt that the cork-center ball would have an effect on the game, it was dispelled during an August homestand, as six homers were blasted over the Forbes Field wall in nine games-a feat accomplished just eight times in the previous year.

Honus Wagner Rules

04-18-2005, 11:57 AM

Here's an A-Rod vs Honus debate I participated in 2003. My screen name is LCBOY. I wanted to know how I did. Did I do Baseball-Fever proud or was I a poser? :laugh

A-Rod vs Wagner Debate (http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24660)

The Splendid Splinter

05-25-2005, 07:55 PM

Thought I would tell you something my great grandpa said about Wagner and Pop Lloyd. (He saw them both in games)

He told me that Lloyd was just as good as Wagner. He couldn't figured out who was better. So he ranked Wagner 1A and Lloyd 1B. He said the 2 differences between Wagner and Lloyd was Wagner could play defense anywhere and did it better, but Lloyd was faster on the field and basepaths. He did tell me though that if he HAD to choose though... it would be always Wagner.

My great grandpa on A rod... He was the third best SS ever already for him.. (that's back in 2001 too when he died) He predicted A Rod would be 3rd all time in HR. He never got to see what Bonds did the last 3 years.

Figured this might help you guys... Some insight from a guy who did seen them play... ( i could start a thread and give you guys insight from him about baseball.)

Honus Wagner Rules

09-16-2005, 12:52 PM

One of the reasons I believe Honus would have been a 45-50 HR hitter in the live ball era was because of his powerful wrists and hands. He had thick strong sinewy wrists. Here's a great photo of his hands and wrists:
1912

Bill Burgess

09-16-2005, 09:25 PM

Honus Wagner's supporters, as the Greatest Player Ever:

John Joseph McGraw-------------NL 91-06, exc. AL 01-02
William Joseph (Bill) Klem---------NL Ump. 1905-1941
Wesley Branch Rickey-----------AL 06-07
Miller James Huggins-------------NL 2B, '04-16
Edward Grant Barrow
Samuel Earl Crawford-----------Cinc. 1899-02; Det. 1903-17
John Henry Gruber------Official Pirates Scorer,1894-1932writer 1880-10's
Henry Louis (Lou) Gehrig---------AL 24-39
William Boyd (Deacon) McKechnie------NL10-13,16-18,20,FL14-15,AL13
James Thomas (Jimmy) Burke----------NL 98-99,01-05,AL 01
William J. (Bill) McGoogan, Jr.----------SL. Louis spwr. 1921-66
Fred Clifford Clarke--------------------NL 94-15
Orval Overall--------------------------NL P 1905-10, 13
John Joseph Evers--------------------NL 02-17,
Max George Carey--------------------NL 1910-29
Samuel James (Jimmy) Sheckard------NL 1897-1913
Michael Joseph Kelley----------------NL1899
Albert Fielding Lang
Thomas William Leach----------------NL 1898-1915,18
George Lange (Highpockets) Kelly----NL 15-17,19-30,32
Charles Benjamin (Babe) Adams------NL 1906,07,09-26,Pitt exc06,17
Robert Mathew (Bobby) Byrne-------NL 1907-17
Edd J. Roush-----------------------FL 1914-15, NL 1916-29,31
William Jeremiah (Billy) Murray-------Pirates manager (1907-09)
Henry Clement (Heinie) Peitz--------NL 1893-1906
Ralph Stuart Davis-----------------Pittsburgh sports writer, 1903-39
Bernhard (Barney) Dreyfuss------Owner Louisville('1899) Pirates(1900-1932)
Mrs. Florence (Wolf) Dreyfuss----Ch. of Bd. of Dir. of Pirates,F 8,1932-46
James J. (Jim) Long--------------Pitts. Sportswriter 1898-1937,Pir.PR
Braven Dyer
Craig Wright
George Leonard Moreland---------Pitts. sp. wr.,BB Historian,BB Statistician
John Kinley Tener----------------ML P, 1889-90
Irwin Martin Howe---------------Chicago Statistician 1908-33
Robert D. Emslie-----------------NL Ump 1891-1924
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Burgess

10-09-2005, 01:28 PM

I would like to take Fever's temperature on Honus Wagner. Where do you still rank Honus Wagner all time? Only among position players. No pitchers included.

Anyone who enjoys this Honus Wagner thread might also enjoy its companion Thread, "Honus Wagner General Thread",

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=27025

They go together and compliment each other nicely. Hope you enjoy both of them as much as we enjoyed presenting them. Bill Burgess

Blackout

10-09-2005, 01:32 PM

9th

second best shortstop behind Lloyd

Bill Burgess

10-09-2005, 01:34 PM

I have long ranked Honus Wagner 2nd behind only Ty Cobb, and ahead of Mays, Bonds, Ruth and Charleston.

csh19792001

10-09-2005, 02:05 PM

Currently, I have him 4th, behind Cobb, Mays, and Ruth.

Cubsfan97

10-09-2005, 03:12 PM

Ive got him 5th all time behind Mays, Horsby, Jackson, and Cobb not in that order though.

Bill Burgess

10-09-2005, 04:31 PM

Isn't debased league strength sufficient reason for dropping a guy a notch or two?

Hmm. Hard question to answer. In this particular instance, I just don't think so. I believe that Wagner's skill set would have remained constant, even if the AL had never existed. But I can't prove it.

Wagner's skill set, his fabulous defense, arm, range, etc. are a God to me. Top of the mountain, state of the art, cutting edge, reference baseball player, for me.

Bill Burgess

538280

10-09-2005, 07:32 PM

Hmm. Hard question to answer. In this particular instance, I just don't think so. I believe that Wagner's skill set would have remained constant, even if the AL had never existed. But I can't prove it.

Wagner's skill set, his fabulous defense, arm, range, etc. are a God to me. Top of the mountain, state of the art, cutting edge, reference baseball player, for me.

Bill Burgess

Bill, this is something you never seem to quite understand about league strength adjustments, and the way I do them (I know Mark does them the same way, but I'm not sure about others). I'm not interested in "time machining" Honus Wagner into the 1970s or any other era. I'm interested in looking at his relative stats or Win Shares, and just adjusting them up or down for quality of play. I see what Wagner did on the field in his own era, and adjust for the competition he faced. I'm interested in the type of things you often say, like "Cobb was so competitive he would have been able to rise up the competition of any era", or "Wagner's fabulously balanced skill set would allow for him to succeed in any era". I'm not interested in time machining the player, I'm interested in adjusting his numbers.

By the way, I currently rate Wagner 7th, behind Charleston, Mays, Ruth, Bonds, Schmidt, and Mantle.

Bill Burgess

10-09-2005, 10:06 PM

Chris,

Here we go again. But I don't mind the merry-go-round. I have deep patience.

There is a difference in approach between the stat community and myself. The stat community isn't interested in what might have happened, if conditions were different. I am.

I don't use the new stats because my math stinks and because it isn't designed to do hypotheticals. Fair enough. But because of that, I have no use for new stats.

If I had great math skills, it wouldn't be that tough to determine what happened. All you need is a calculator. That is where you are.

And that bores me silly. Why should I care what happened, if the playing conditions were so different that one set of players had insurmountable advantages? What would be the point? What's the difference?

If it means so much to you, Babe Ruth established the best set of stats. That's what's happened.

Could he have done the best under different conditions? Now that is the juicey question for minds like mine!! And it requires deft, soft adjustments in one's fantasy. But that bores you silly.

So where does that leave us, Chris? On opposite sides of a great divide. An unbridgeable chasm, a deep ravine, the unfathomable abyss.

I can salute you on your side, and have respect, so why can't your side grant us the same courtesy?

Bill Burgess

Sirmudgeon

10-10-2005, 01:55 AM

One of the main reasons I love this site is the impassioned defence of individual, or even collective points of view. Particularly, I might refer to the "numbers vs. opinions" or "calculators vs. hearts" solipcisms. Way cool, folks, the tinder for a myriad of barroom (sic) (or sick) discussions, if only we were still weaned on Baseball. Another reason that I am a devotee stems from mine own opinion-in-flux, for as I peruse these missives I find myself persuaded one way, then t'other, then in another direction entirely.

So I took a minute and revised my top ten, and of course, wonders will never cease, couldn't leave a few guys off whilst pondering Honustly.

1. Ruth-'cause he's still a Babe,
2. Ty- running right up Geo. Herman's butt rounding third,
3. Mays- for the classic photo of stickball, c. 1954,
4. Gehrig- every time I hear the name Lou, I inadvertently summon his shade to my consciousness,
5. Teddy Ballgame, 'nuf said,
6. Wagner- yeah he was the NL by himself. HELLO, people, loyalty points still count in my book, plus he proved it in the Be Serious,
7. Hornsby- again, whenever I hear "Mandolin Rain" I think Rogers,
8. Bonds- the black Ruth, sans pitching,
9. ARod- the player of baseball as it is conducted today,
10. Collins- the early Master of All He Surveyed,
11. Mantle- met him once, I get the whole aura thing,
12. Dimag- wish I'd met him... once,
13. Foxx- all contemporary accounts term him a Beast; I concur,
14. Bench- the term benchmark may well be his legacy,
15. Musial- what amazes me are all the triples he hit. Heck, during my 11 year old fantasy fan days, I wrote a story about him, for my own amusement, gosh I wish I'd kept it, I drew a picture of him- with a moustache!- made it into a book cover, kept it for school, yadda yadda ya.

Again, how cool is this thread?

flash143817

10-10-2005, 02:38 AM

1. Ruth
2. Cobb
3. Williams
4. Mays
5. Wagner

Bill Burgess

10-10-2005, 07:30 AM

What I consider WAY COOL is that grown men can still get such a kick out of our childhood formative favorite stuff.

Who could have known that we could still have such powerfully strong beliefs concerning our baseball players Top 10!!

Now that is what I call --- WAY WAy Coolel, Baby! Anybody wanna have a catch?

I also think it's keen that we have so many members here who played the game after college and were actually good at it.

Grownup Big Kid (Why did I let go my old childhood baseball cards?)

oscargamblesfro

10-10-2005, 09:15 AM

i can't "rank" wagner with any certainty. it's too hard for me whenever i try to come up with, say, my top 50 players. i tend to view guys more in the sense of how they stack up against their competition at their position or in the league at the time, etc.

i think one can make the case that wagner is, in terms of dominating the times, easily the best national league ss, and really still the greatest shortstop in major league history. probably indisputably the best player in the national league up to the time of mays, and with the probable exception of cobb, the best all around player of the deadball era.

wagner is also, whatever it's worth, one of the most humble, kindly, and admirable figures in the game's history, as evidenced by his humility when asked how he compared with john henry lloyd. that counts for something in my book.

jalbright

10-10-2005, 09:31 AM

I have Wagner fourth overall. Wagner is the top shortstop, with only Pop Lloyd as serious competition. The only other guy who I think dominates his position like Honus is Josh Gibson. When you get right down to it, if you were drafting a team from all the players in history and had at least a dozen total in the draft, I'd seriously consider drafting Honus or Josh first because they're so far ahead of the rest at their position, they'd be much more valuable. Ruth, Cobb, and T. Williams aren't nearly as far ahead of who you could get in later rounds of the draft for your outfield as Honus is over every shortstop but Lloyd or Josh Gibson is over every other catcher.

Jim Albright

Sirmudgeon

10-10-2005, 06:12 PM

Should be the title of a dense Stoppard play. Nonetheless, Mr. Albright makes some excellent points re Honus and his separation from his peers. I still rate ARod the next best, though it could be argued that short-term competition (Nomar, Miggy, even Jeter if you really stretch a point) was closer to he than were any of Honus' peers. Not sure about Gibson, and I saw Bench play, so I stick with the big Okie. Again, though, I see the thrust of the thinking. As far as drafting first, that is an interesting call, given the value of the various positions. Best of all time, favourite of all time, and who you would draft first would have to be slightly different, be it for a fantasy league (#s only) or for a fantasy real league (oooh, did I just string that sentence together? only my college philosophy prof and a really stoned guy I knew called Gunther could nod sagely at that one without smirking). Yeah, I could see calling Wagner's name first, or Bench's/Gibson's, then I'd have to stay up the middle and draft a CF (Cobb), then go Schmidt to nail down the left side, take a corner outfielder (there would be a few decent ones left by then, all the CFs would go first, Mays/Mantle/DiMag), then 2B if I could convince the Rajah to turn the DP, then 1B/corner outfielder (could be interchangeable, to an extent, to play first well is an art form but to play it simply adequately is not that difficult).

charlesblalack@yahoo.com

10-10-2005, 08:56 PM

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Honus Wagner

Chisox

10-11-2005, 07:14 AM

9th, 7th among position players, BY FAR #1 SS all-time.

yest

10-11-2005, 09:19 AM

make that 6th missed the position players part

abacab

10-11-2005, 10:22 AM

Bill, this is something you never seem to quite understand about league strength adjustments, and the way I do them (I know Mark does them the same way, but I'm not sure about others). I'm not interested in "time machining" Honus Wagner into the 1970s or any other era. I'm interested in looking at his relative stats or Win Shares, and just adjusting them up or down for quality of play. I see what Wagner did on the field in his own era, and adjust for the competition he faced. I'm interested in the type of things you often say, like "Cobb was so competitive he would have been able to rise up the competition of any era", or "Wagner's fabulously balanced skill set would allow for him to succeed in any era". I'm not interested in time machining the player, I'm interested in adjusting his numbers.

There's an idea I've heard in opposition to league strength adjustments, which is that a player can only rise so far above his competition. While it's true that Wagner's competition was pretty weak, it's also true that he completely dominated them for a very long time, in every aspect.

With your adjustments, in order to rate Wagner higher, he would have had to have 50 or 55 WS per year. Even against weak competition, that's pretty close to impossible. We're talking about him hitting .400 with 80 steals, every single year. There's a limit to which a player, even an all-time great, can dominate his era.

Bill Burgess is saying that even if Wagner had played against better competition, he still would have dominated to nearly the same extent. Obviously none of us can know that for sure, but Wagner's all-around skills and athletic ability are points in his favor.

leecemark

10-11-2005, 01:27 PM

torez77

10-11-2005, 01:40 PM

I don't have a definitive ranking right now, but he's probably in my Top 5, since he was probably one of the 5 most dominant players ever.

Bill Burgess

10-11-2005, 05:03 PM

--I agree that only so much domination is possible when competing at even a moderately high level. OTOH, I've actually lowered Wagner slightly on my own list due to league quality concerns. I divide MLB history into 15 year segments for ease of sorting. Wagner falls into my period 1901-15 NL. He is the ONLY Nl player from that period in my top 100 and, while I haven't actually ranked to 200, his teammate Fred Clarke is the only absolute lock for the next hundred (probably would actually be 2-3 more).

In other words, it really doesn't matter how good a NL player was from 1900-15, he isn't going to rank near your very top. And that is unfair to Honus Wagner. Your system is too stacked against the NL player of that era, even if he were Superman.

leecemark

10-11-2005, 07:05 PM

--I give Honus credit for 80% of his margin above league. I expect that the league probably improved more 20% from his time to the present, so I might be overrating him. I don't want to totally devalue the legends of the past so there is a limit to how much I'll mark down a players relative stats.
-- Even with the markdown Honus makes my top 10 and is my #1 SS. I don't really have a problem with his 4th place finish in our current polls and, like Jim Albright, I'd strongly consider drafting him #1 in an all time league (in fact I did trade up to get him with the #2 pick in our Diamond Classic all time NL draft).

Bill Burgess

10-11-2005, 08:13 PM

I don't think it is fair, right or just to compare a 1900 player with a 2005 player. Why does Wagner have to be as good as a 2005 player?

All a player can do is be the best of his time. Wagner did that better than anyone since.

JT (Imapotato) cites that the leagues had achieved parity by 1908, and Honus literally crushed his 1908 peers to powder.

For anyone to continue to use relative league strength is fallacious. Wagner did not have the benefit of 100 years of evolved techniques, accumulated methods, wisdom, and history to call upon.

We here in 2005, are benefiting from HIM, Bobby Wallace, Maranville, Long, etc, while they could not similarly benefit from the future.

A-Rod can't dominate his peers as well as Honus, not due to better league, but because he can't run as well, field as well, or hit as well. Deal with it.

PS. If I were picking a team, I go with, in order, Cobb, Wagner, W. Johnson, Ewing, Sisler.

leecemark

10-11-2005, 08:28 PM

--I don't regard Imapotato as any particular authority on when the NL caught up. I think the AL was the better league, by varying degrees, right up through WWII. The AL remained the better league by a fair margin through the teens. If you were to make up a MLB 1910s All Star team every position, except maybe SS, would be an AL player.
--Honus didn't have the advantage of modern techniques - but neither did anybody else. Wagner actually did come closer to modern training techniques than any of his peers. He was one of the few who believed in weight training in his era (weight lifting was regarded as bad training baseball as recently as my own youth). The Dutchman would be a great player today, but it is foolish to assume that he would dominate the game the way he did then. It seems unlikely he would come anywhere close.

Bill Burgess

10-11-2005, 08:53 PM

--Honus didn't have the advantage of modern techniques - but neither did anybody else. Wagner actually did come closer to modern training techniques than any of his peers. He was one of the few who believed in weight training in his era (weight lifting was regarded as bad training baseball as recently as my own youth). The Dutchman would be a great player today, but it is foolish to assume that he would dominate the game the way he did then. It seems unlikely he would come anywhere close.

A 1905 player SHOULDN'T be able to dominate today's game! If a 1905 player was great today, that is, in itself, a phenomenal accomplishment.

I doubt if A-Rod would be great in 2110! Think about it. 105 years, and the man is still great. Amazing thing!
So far, as of July 10, 2006, out of 99 voters, 67 have placed Honus in the Top 5. 67%

leecemark

10-11-2005, 09:11 PM

--I'm not talking about time machining here. If Wager had been born 30 years ago and had all the modern advantages there is still no way he could dominate the present game like he did the more primative version of his own time.

Honus Wagner Rules

10-14-2005, 07:41 AM

A 1905 player SHOULDN'T be able to dominate today's game! If a 1905 player was great today, that is, in itself, a phenomenal accomplishment.

I doubt if A-Rod would be great in 2110! Think about it. 105 years, and the man is still great. Amazing thing!

Bill,

I disagree. From time to time there are athletes that are born with unique skills. I truly believe that Honus Wagner has immense physical abilities. Look at some of the photos I posted in this thread, especially of his hands and wrists and forearms. Wagner was immensely strong and I believe had he been born 20 years later (1894) he would absolutely would have been a 500-700 HR hitter.

Bill Burgess

10-14-2005, 08:21 AM

I disagree. From time to time there are athletes that are born with unique skills. I truly believe that Honus Wagner has immense physical abilities. Look at some of the photos I posted in this thread, especially of his hands and wrists and forearms. Wagner was immensely strong and I believe had he been born 20 years later (1894) he would absolutely would have been a 500-700 HR hitter.

Adam,

You have misunderstood. When I said that a 1905 player, should not, by all rights of averages be able to dominate today, I truly mean that. And I also believe that Honus Wagner, would be a dominant player today, just not AS DOMINANT as he was then, due to improved league quality.

No one from pre-1930 baseball should be able to make the league today, by the law of averages. That I believe that Cobb, Ruth, Wagner, Ewing, pre-eye problems Sisler, Speaker, Hornsby could make the league and do quite well, is a testament to my powers of belief, and to their expanded skills set.

I truly believe that hardly any of the 1930 players could make the MLs today. They would be the equivalent of the high minors today. And the pre-1900 players would rank considerably lower than that.

But I also happen to agree with Adam, that a very certain, select, rare few of those ballplayers, could/would have been able to adjust their tools/skill sets, and raise their game, even if we use the unfair "time-machine" method of comparison.

If we used the more fair "birth them to a later era" method, then there would be little to no argument that certain, select rare stars would be able to find a way to star even today.

Bill Burgess

538280

10-14-2005, 08:07 PM

I use Wagner to measure the deeper BB knowledge/smarts of the members. Sorry, guys, but I do.

Bill, what's that supposed to mean? Does that mean that anyone who rates Wagner lower than 5th you consider not to be a knowledgeable member?

Believe me, I know about Wagner and other old time stars. I just feel that quality of play is very, very important in rating players. In order for an old timer to be considered the best player ever, I think they need to dominate at the Ruth/Charleston level. I feel Ruth and Charleston dominated the game about the same. But, since Oscar was a CF and a great one, and Babe was a RF and a mediocre one, Charleston I feel has substantially more defensive value and rates ahead.

Bill Burgess

10-14-2005, 08:30 PM

Chris,

I mean exactly what I say. Perhaps I should try and express myself even better. Maybe you and Mark are knowledgeable, but still incorrect. Bill James ranks Ty Cobb 5th all time, yet he is more knowledgeable than I am.

But knowledge alone apparently isn't enough to get your evaluations right. Bill James ranks Wagner 2nd, and Charleston 4th. Incorrect.

You are inconsistent. You rank Oscar ahead of Wagner. So much for league strength. You don't hold league quality against Oscar, but you do against Honus! So much for consistency.

I, on the other hand, do not hold it against either superstar. You need to rethink your reasoning process, Chris. Neither Oscar, nor Honus could control their league qualities.

I'll never guess how you can reconcile such contradictions in logic.

Bill

leecemark

10-14-2005, 08:36 PM

--Bill, I don't think Honus has been evaluated down in the past year, so much as Willie Mays has moved up (although perhaps its some of both). Willie also bested Cobb in the recent "best CF" poll (although he came up short in the best player poll #2) and I'm hopefull that a year from now he'll move up that spot if we do this again in another year. The top spot seems an impossible dream, as the Babe holds a pretty monumental lead over everybody else.

Bill Burgess

10-15-2005, 04:03 AM

We're up to 26-8, in terms of Fever members ranking Wagner in their Top 5. No one's dropped him from their Top 10, so far. Those who do probably are too wise to admit it.

CTaka

10-15-2005, 01:39 PM

Bill,

I disagree. From time to time there are athletes that are born with unique skills. I truly believe that Honus Wagner has immense physical abilities. Look at some of the photos I posted in this thread, especially of his hands and wrists and forearms. Wagner was immensely strong and I believe had he been born 20 years later (1894) he would absolutely would have been a 500-700 HR hitter.

I agree with this. If Wagner were born 20 (or more) years later, his stolen base totals would be lower because stolen bases were emphasized far more in the deadball days. But given his physical strength, the observations of his power during his day, and his high number of extra base hits, Wagner finishing with 500-700 homers is certainly very plausible.

Sultan_1895-1948

10-15-2005, 01:58 PM

csh19792001

10-15-2005, 03:35 PM

This assumes that Wagner would have abandoned his natural style of play, but I agree with 500 homers being very possible.

Had he been born 20 years later, he would still have his first 6 years in '14-'19, when slugging wasn't the norm. Its likely he could have adjusted just fine.

Ill post Schell's projections (the thread below) here, for the Nth time. I think this is the best estimate anyone has come up with. If anyone knows of any better, or has comments, I'd certainly like to hear about it, though.

Note- Metal Ed, who presented this, later recanted upon further consideration that because of their (almost completely) iconoclastic styles, the estimates for Ruth's slugging/production and Tony Gwynn's batting average are inflated.

Had either played in a league where their style was at all prevalent, their relative numbers (i.e., seperation from the pack) would not have been nearly as great as it was. Considering seperation from the pack means a hell of a lot in any value formula, this remains a vital caveat.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=26497&highlight=schell%27s+fully

Personally, I think Wagner would probably hit a lot more than 22 homeruns a year playing now, but who the hell knows?? 1) I never saw Wagner play, so I have no idea what he was capable of in terms of power hitting 2) I never saw a game (or the level of performance of any of the players) from his era.

Bill Burgess

10-15-2005, 05:50 PM

As a baseball community, we are up to 39 out of 55, in our assessments of Honus Wagner. 39 members rank Honus in their Top 5, 16 do not.

70.90% of the Fever members who participated in this poll rank Honus Wagner in their Top 5 Players.

Sultan_1895-1948

10-31-2005, 11:31 PM

Bill, supposedly once Honus rejected a $2,000 salary by saying "I won't play for a penny less than fifteen-hundred dollars." Would love it if you have any more detail on that.

Bill to Randy:
Randy,

In 1908, Honus hit the top of his pay, $10,000. From then on, he never asked for, or expected a raise. When his boss, offered him a raise, he'd always say, "I won't work for a penny over $10,000."

His boss so appreciated his attitude, that he never cut his pay, even when he obviously declined. Both men had the right attitude. And it worked to their mutual interest.

Honus Wagner Rules

11-01-2005, 07:27 AM

Here's an old article comparing A-Rod to Honus from about four years. That fact that people were already comparing A-Rod to Wagner when he was 25 years old amazes me.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/01preview/shortstop.html

Why did they have to use a photo of an obviously old Honus Wagner? :(

Honus Wagner Rules

11-01-2005, 07:32 AM

Here's Rob Neyer's take on the Honus vs A-Rod debate for a few years ago (April 2001).

Can A-Rod become the greatest ever?

By Rob Neyer
ESPN.com

Alex Rodriguez is 25 years old. He's also a baseball player, and so intelligent men think they can forecast his future. It's simple, right? Just look at all the other baseball players, find those with similar statistics at the same age, get the average of those players' career stats, and -- voila -- there's Alex Rodriguez at 40!

Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems with this methodology. One, while averages are certainly instructive, they're not particularly precise. And two, there simply haven't been many (any?) players with similar statistics at the same age as Alex Rodriguez, at least not shortstops with similar statistics.

Case in point: Many years ago, Bill James concocted something called Similarity Scores, which essentially measures the overall similarity between the statistics of one player and another, with an adjustment for positional difference. Two players with identical statistics have a 1000 similarity score. James classified scores above 950 as "unusually similar," any score above 900 as "truly similar," any score above 850 as "essentially similar," and any score above 800 as "somewhat similar."

Alex Rodriguez played most of last season at 24. Statistically, the five most similar players to Rodriguez through age 24 are:

Junior Griffey (830)
Mickey Mantle (825)
Cal Ripken (815)
Eddie Mathews (805)
Mel Ott (804)

You see the problem? In all of baseball's long, long history, not even a single player rates as "unusually similar" to Rodriguez at the same age. Or even "truly similar." Nobody. And only five players rate as "somewhat similar." It is, however, worth noting that the five players listed above are all Hall of Famers or future Hall of Famers.

So we might surmise, from our look at Similarity Scores, that Alex Rodriguez will one day take his place in Cooperstown ... but then, we already knew that, didn't we? What we really want to know is, what sort of Hall of Famer will he be? Will he be Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle? Stan Musial or Tony Gwynn? Honus Wagner or Cal Ripken?

In each of those pairs, the first player listed ranks among the greatest dozen or so non-pitchers ever, while the second ranks somewhere just a bit below (at least in terms of career value).

Of course, what distinguishes Rodriguez is both how much he's done, and how soon. Rodriguez turned 25 last July, which means that he played more than half of the season at 24, which we consider his "seasonal age."

The latest edition of Total Baseball has just been published, and one feature is Total Player Rating (TPR), which sums a player's hitting, baserunning and fielding contributions, and arrives at a number representing that player's value, in wins, above an average player at the same position. And according to this method, Rodriguez has been worth 25.9 victories more than an average major-league shortstop since he arrived in the majors.

What sort of players rack up a 25.9 TPR before they turn (seasonal age) 25? Checking a number of Hall of Famers and likely Hall of Famers, these are the highest TPR's through age 24 that I could find:

Rogers Hornsby 36.0
Ty Cobb 29.9
Mickey Mantle 26.1
Alex Rodriguez 25.3
Junior Griffey 22.8
Joe Jackson 22.2
Tris Speaker 21.4
Mel Ott 21.3
Rickey Henderson 20.4

Hornsby, of course, is regarded as perhaps the greatest second baseman in history (I rate him just a notch below Joe Morgan, but that's something of an idiosyncratic position, based on the higher level of play in Morgan's era). And there are certainly some parallels between Hornsby and Rodriguez. Both came up when they were very young, facing major-league pitching at the tender age of 19. And both began their careers as shortstops, as Hornsby didn't permanently shift to second base until he was 24.

Mantle and Griffey both popped up in the earlier list, which shouldn't be too surprising. Cobb, Speaker, Henderson, Jackson ... all of them rank among not only the best players at their positions, but among the best players, period.

Taking these hard, cold looks at the numbers, it's apparent that Rodriguez has a great future. But again, the question at hand is "How great?"

Baseball players are human. They are not -- as I'm so often reminded, both by the players in their actions and by readers in their e-mail messages -- simply rows of numbers in Total Baseball. Over the next 15 or so years, things will happen to Alex Rodriguez, and it's how Alex Rodriguez responds to those things that will determine his place in history.

Now that he's financially set for life, will his competitive spirit continue to thrive? If he moves to third base, will he work hard to become a great defensive third baseman? Or will he settle for adequate? If he tears an ACL, will he endure the maximum amount of endurable pain to ensure a full and speedy recovery? Or will he cut those workouts short, and perhaps cost himself a few-score hits and a dozen home runs? Most important of all, will he generally stay healthy? Rodriguez has been in the majors for five full seasons, and he's spent time on the DL in four of them. If Rodriguez's career were The Riddler's costume, the big ? in the middle would represent his durability.

We cannot, in April of 2001, know the answers to these questions. Yet it's these answers that will determine whether or not Alex Rodriguez becomes "merely" a Hall of Famer, or perhaps the greatest player that we've ever seen.

Honus Wagner Rules

11-01-2005, 07:36 AM

I participated in an A-Rod vs Honus debate back in 2003. The other guy gave up after I pummeled him for a few rounds. :D Anyway, he quit before I could use any heavy sabermetrics. I used the classical Bill Burgess technique of focusing on league leading performances and first-person eye witness accounts.

http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24660

Honus Wagner Rules

11-01-2005, 07:47 AM

It's my strong belief that had Honus been born 20 years later (1894) he absolutely would have been a 500-700 HR man. One of the keys to his domination was his immense physical strength. Honus had tremendously strong hands, wrists, and forearms.

MasonDixon

11-24-2005, 10:29 AM

I rate Wagner 2nd only to Cobb.

yanks0714

11-25-2005, 10:59 AM

PS. If I were picking a team, I go with, in order, Cobb, Wagner, W. Johnson, Ewing, Sisler.

Since I play DiamondMind baseball, putting together various All-Star teams, without manipulating the players, Wager is always the top choice at SS where he is available. Generally he is the #1 choice, period, because he is so far ahead of whoever is next in line at SS.

So, even if I took Mays to counter your Cobb, Alexander to counte your Big Train, Bench to counter your Ewing, and Gehrig to counter your Sisler...I'm at a big disadvatage as SS whoever I pick to your Wagner.

CTaka

12-28-2005, 09:39 PM

after 2005, does anyone doubt A-rod can become better than Honus?

Certainly. In 2005, ARod had a great year as a 3B. Looks like he racked up 37 total Win Shares. That would tie Wagner's 37 Win Shares that he had in 1901, the seventh highest of Honus' career. And certainly nowhere close to the record 59 total Win Shares that Wagner totalled in 1908.

Now if you are saying that ARod can improve his 2005 performance by 58% in one of the coming years, then I think old Honus is in a real dogfight....assuming that ARod moves back to SS. :)

Blackout

12-28-2005, 10:19 PM

Certainly. In 2005, ARod had a great year as a 3B. Looks like he racked up 37 total Win Shares. That would tie Wagner's 37 Win Shares that he had in 1901, the seventh highest of Honus' career. And certainly nowhere close to the record 59 total Win Shares that Wagner totalled in 1908.

Now if you are saying that ARod can improve his 2005 performance by 58% in one of the coming years, then I think old Honus is in a real dogfight....assuming that ARod moves back to SS. :)

what about the fact that A-rod plays in a league thats tougher?

Bill Burgess

12-28-2005, 10:41 PM

what about the fact that A-rod plays in a league thats tougher?

Is true that Honus' league had been decimated by incessant AL raiding, but by 1908, the wars had ended and the NL had 3 yrs. to trade with the AL, and strengthen itself.

So, when Honus had his geat monster year in 1908, his league was roughly in parity with the AL.

Tougher league means something, but so does utter dominance. Can A-Rod be the best hitter/fielder/runner in his league for 10 yrs.? So adjust for league quality, can A-Rod EVER be the top hitter/fielder/runner in his L. even one time??!

Is A-Rod such a singular, unique talent that his bat/glove/running can ever become a legend?

Let's get down to basics.

1. Wagner was recognized as the best player in BB for 10 yrs.
Can A-Rod ever be recognized as the best player in his own time, for a minute.

2. Wagner was recognized as the 2nd greatest all-around player ever from 1912-1950.
Can A-Rod ever scale that mountain of recognition. Ever.

3. In his world, some of the most astute obserbers ever, such as John J. McGraw, Bill Klem, Ed Barrow, Branch Rickey, Sam Crawford expressed their opinion that they couldn't imagine anyone else ever playing baseball as well as Honus Wagner. And they said that even after they had seen Cobb, Ruth, Lajoie, DiMag, Williams, etc. Not every one, of course. One died, but if McGraw had lived, it's doubtful he'd have changed his mind.

Yes, Alexander Rodriguez is a very great player, in the same way that DiMaggio & Musial were tops. But at Wagner's level? Has it occurred to anyone that some players were not destined to be at Wagner's level, due to not being born with Dutchman's awesome skill set?

Bill Burgess

Blackout

12-28-2005, 11:06 PM

Is true that Honus' league had been decimated by incessant AL raiding, but by 1908, they wars had ended and the NL had 3 yrs. to trade with the AL, and strengthen itself.

and the level of play in 1908 is still weak compared to the level of play in 2005

Wagner may not have been the best SHORTSTOP of his own era, John Henry Lloyd may have been good enough to challenge that had his skin not been black. Lloyd could have not only been his equal, but even better.

A-rod's closest competition? Jeter and his 121 OPS+? Nomar with his injuries?

Winning a short stop gold glove and hitting 57 home runs in the same season season is possibly an even better accomplishment to me than Wagner's 1908

In a couple years I could see A-rod passing Honus (and Lloyd)

Bill Burgess

12-28-2005, 11:38 PM

In a couple years I could see A-rod passing Honus (and Lloyd)

I can see your point in everything you brought up, Pattie. I can agree with you on John Lloyd, but without documentation, it would be an awful risky stretch to let ourselves come to a conclusion.

But I think it's already too late for A-Rod to catch up. He's already 30. When Wagner was 30, in 1905, he was the colossus who bestrode the BB world. Lajoie was a close second, but Wagner was without a peer in the MLs.

McGraw said that they could never identify his point of highest superiority, hitting/fielding/running.

No one calls A-Rod the last word on defense. He isn't an Omar Vizquel with the glove, and couldn't even get Jeter to shove over. Yeah, a GG SS who hits 57 homers is special, but let's not forget he plays in the Age of Barry Bonds, Sosa, McGwire. Wagner didn't play in the Age of Lajoie.

And I don't even know if we can call A-Rod the best hitter around. Pujols, Ramirez, Thomas, Bonds?, etc., can all make their respective claims.

I rank A-Rod the successor to Barry Bonds as the finest all-around player today, after we see that Barry is finished at the top.

But I never ranked even Barry at Wagner's level. Not even with steroids. A-Rod IS my kind of player. But let's not forget. He's not a GG SS anymore. Thank Derek for that. A-Rod must now carve his legacy at 3B. And a GG 3B who hits 57 homers carries less value than a GG SS who hits 57 smackers.

If Wagner had been allowed to remain at 3B for his career, he could have conserved his energy on defense, and used it on offense. And those are unfortunately for A-Rod the types of considerations which will never allow him to catch the Legend of the Dutchman.

Bill Burgess

Victory Faust

02-03-2006, 12:27 PM

I rank Honus #5. Why? I don't know exactly. But I figure he's got to be in the top five all-time, because nobody else that I'm aware of was able to play so many positions so well.

nightal

03-25-2006, 11:50 AM

Top 5 easily.

Ahead of all shortstops............easily

leecemark

03-25-2006, 01:23 PM

--So start some threads on the topics that interest you. If player ratings aren't your cup of tea, nobody is forcing you to participate in them. Although the best part about the player rating or comparison threads isn't seeign where a guy stacks up. It is the sidetracks they often go on while debating those points. You can learn some things totally unrelated to the player in question.

Imapotato

03-31-2006, 10:49 AM

and the level of play in 1908 is still weak compared to the level of play in 2005

It is not

Biggest fallacy spread throughout baseball

For every plus you can name for todays game, there is a a plus for 1908

Everyone was playign baseball back then, alot of the top baseball players in HS go off to play football, soccer, basketball in todays age

Honus Wagner Rules

03-31-2006, 11:32 AM

Everyone, take a look at the bat that Honus is using in the game action shots. The bat seems to have a much larger diameter, even on the smaller end, than today's bats. And Honus is choking up on the bat as well. The bat looks long and heavy by today's standards. Does anyone have any data on the size of the bats Honus used?

Honus Wagner Rules

03-31-2006, 11:49 AM

Here are some Honus vs A-Rod articles. Mind you these were written several years ago.

http://baseballguru.com/articles/analysismikehoban02.html

http://proxy.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=1533913

http://espn.go.com/mlb/01preview/shortstop.html

Metal Ed

03-31-2006, 02:49 PM

A 1905 player SHOULDN'T be able to dominate today's game! If a 1905 player was great today, that is, in itself, a phenomenal accomplishment.

I doubt if A-Rod would be great in 2110! Think about it. 105 years, and the man is still great. Amazing thing!

When reach 900 years old, look as good you will not!

I have Honus 4rth behind Willie, Tyrus and George Herman.

TyrusRaymondCobb

04-07-2006, 06:39 PM

I'd rank Wagner 1st of my position players, and a close 2nd of all players (for me, Johnson is top, even if it's just for his 1925 Season - BA of .433 (for a pitcher with 100 PA (97 AB), almost unheard of), a W-L record of 20-7, and a FLD% of .970.

My top 3:

Johnson
Wagner
Cobb

Interesting to note that these 3 were in the 1st HOF intake. Anyway, that's my 2c worth!

Simon Foster

DoubleX

04-09-2006, 12:50 AM

Sorry to cut into this series of terrific pictures Bill, but I don't think I've responded yet in this thread and wanted to add my own useless ramblings...

I think Wagner is one of the most difficult players for me to rank on the all-time list (1st among SS though). I never know quite what to do with him. I have him in my top 10, but unlike every other player in my top 10, I never really know exactly which spot Wagner should get (as the poll on this thread is asking). On one hand, he gets a huge boost for doing the things he did as a SS, but on the other hand, he gets knocked down some for era considerations. Therein lies the problem, I have a really difficult time knowing how much to factor era in for Wagner. If I give him my usual adjustments, which can be pretty harsh, especially on deadball players, he probably falls out of my top 10, but that just doesn't feel right. What I do know is that I have him ranked behind at least: Ruth, Mays, Cobb, and Williams. So at best he's 5th, but then I never know what to do with him in relation to Aaron (who is also often in flux in my rankings), Bonds (steroids are making this choice easier for me), and Gehrig (who I'm particularly partial to). And I suppose on some days guys like Mantle, Musial, Frank Robinson, Speaker, DiMaggio, Hornsby, and Schmidt could factor in as well, but it's pretty unlikely for most of these guys.

So, my rambling has led me to the conclusion that Wagner is somewhere in the 5-8 range for me.

digglahhh

04-09-2006, 08:49 AM

So, my rambling has led me to the conclusion that Wagner is somewhere in the 5-8 range for me.

That's where he's going to lie for me too, I think; you guys know that I don't keep an actual list.

Bill, great flicks, but let me ask you a question.

What is the difference between being 4th and 7th all time? Does it matter? You are so far along the distribution curve that it doesn't even matter, especially when there is no way to "prove" these rankings.

I think it is more apt to consider players in terms of percentile as opposed to numerical ranking. Individual rankings magnify the difference between the all-time greats. Foxx and Aaron are more similar than they are different...

Its not an insult to anybody to consider them not as good of a ball player as Willie Mays. And it seems silly to me to say, he's better than Frank Robinson- like I'm being dismissive of Frank Robinson.

I can't really answer any of the polls that ask me to nail down players so specifically, and that's why I don't generally do the lists.

How do I rank Honus?

I would have to say, almost as good as Cobb, whatever that means...

Honus Wagner Rules

04-09-2006, 09:42 AM

Adam,

How do you like my Honus shots so far?

Bill

Awesome! I've been trying feverishly to find a photo when Honus was with Louisville. I can't find one. Do you know if any exist?

tailpipe

04-09-2006, 10:38 AM

As of now, only Ruth is ahead of Honus, but Bonds will be #2 soon. I don't think you can place players in there historical context un til their career is over.

Bill Burgess

04-09-2006, 01:07 PM

Awesome! I've been trying feverishly to find a photo when Honus was with Louisville. I can't find one. Do you know if any exist?
Yes, one does exist. There is a Louisville team photograph in the book, "Honus Wagner: The Life of Baseball's "Flying Dutchman", by Arthur D. Hittner, 1996. There is a set of photos beginning on page 130, and the Louisville team shot is on the 2nd page of that set. Wagner is in it, as is Fred Clarke.

Others in the photo are: Joe Dolan, Abbie Johnson, Bill Hill, Perry Werden, Bill Wilson, Dick Butler, General Stafford, Bill Clark, Billy Clingman, Billy Magee, Roy Eans, Bert Cuningham, Chick Fraser, Charlie Dexter.

It's the 11th place Louisville Colonels of 1897, Wagner's rookie season.

gehrigfan

04-09-2006, 01:17 PM

Sultan_1895-1948

04-09-2006, 01:18 PM

As of now, only Ruth is ahead of Honus, but Bonds will be #2 soon. I don't think you can place players in there historical context un til their career is over.

If you're gonna have Bonds at #2, you might as well just make him #1 imo. Just go all the way with it. Hang it all out there. Why sissyfoot and pretend like there's something that either warrants #2 or doesn't warrant #1 :confused:

Diggs and Double,

I respect the approach you guys take in terms of ranking. I feel pretty much the same way, in fact, I never really had a list written out til' I came to Fever and was bombarded by "ranking" threads. It was always #1 and #2, with the rest changing depending on various things, and why I have such a hard time with someone giving a NgLer a concrete spot at #3, like someone here does, when there's less than half the info available.

Sultan_1895-1948

04-09-2006, 01:20 PM

Bill Burgess

04-09-2006, 01:58 PM

How do I rank Honus?
I can understand that rankings like this can be quite abstract and theoretical. And perhaps at the end of the day, they mean nothing. But they can be fun too.

I do not think I am really qualified to make pronouncements and pontificate either. One of the things which has always guided me, is that those who saw Hans, (and Ty, and Babe) were quite vocal in their pronouncements. I tabulate those who believed what. And so far, I have found that a really decisive, over-whelming really consensus of the real experts on that kind of play, favored Ty Cobb. And Honus Wagner next.

It might be hard to compare Cobb/Ruth, but not Cobb/Wagner. They were exactly comparable type players. Specialized in small ball skills. Sure, we make our adjustments for era a tiny bit, parks, leagues. But those who knew small ball best, who made their living at it for years, and then managed/coached for decades, favored Ty by 80.75%, Honus 10.41%, and Babe 8.83%. That is not close. No room for error. Decisive, identifying, end of story.

Those players of that era are the only real experts, NOT the Bill James clones who came 65 years later, never saw a deadball game in his life, and couldn't imagine the values of that age.

So, those are who I listen to. Even the pre-1900 guys, who were expected to favor their own players, didn't. They favored Cobb.

37 prominent pre-1900 guys all came out for TC.

Cap Anson, Ned Hanlon, Willie Keeler, Charles Comiskey, Clark Griffith, Francis Richter, Tim Murnane, Sam Crane, Connie Mack, Cy Young, Wilbert Robinson, Hughie Jennings, Chief Zimmer, Jake Morse, Kid Gleason, Bill Dinneen, Tom Connelly, George Stallings, Nick Altrock, John B. Sheridan, Jimmie McAleer, Bill Phelon, Arlie Latham, MacLean Kennedy, Ban Johnson, Edson Brewston, Henry Edwards, Ernie Lanigan, Hugh Fullerton, Gordon Mackay, Fred Logan, Mike Kilroy, Billy Alvord, Bobby Lowe, Harry Davis, Al Maul.

All told, that is 37 out of 256 Cobb supporters, or 14.45%, were from pre-1900.

One of the things which modern people forget, is that before Forbes Field opened, as the first modern, steel/concrete stadium, the Pirates played in a ballpark which featured foul lines of 400 feet down each one!! That humongous OF expanse cut down the power numbers of the Pirate hitters drastically.

But Honus overcame that drastic handicap and dominated his NL rivals, who had better parks to hit in.

Here are the Honus supporters, who I've been able to locate quotes for.

John Joseph McGraw, William Joseph (Bill) Klem, Wesley Branch Rickey, Miller James Huggins
Edward Grant Barrow, Samuel Earl Crawford, John Henry Gruber, Henry Louis (Lou) Gehrig,
William Boyd (Deacon) McKechnie, James Thomas (Jimmy) Burke, William J. (Bill) McGoogan, Jr., Fred Clifford Clarke, Orval Overall, John Joseph Evers, Max George Carey, Samuel James (Jimmy) Sheckard, Michael Joseph Kelley, Albert Fielding Lang, Thomas William Leach, George Lange (Highpockets) Kelly, Charles Benjamin (Babe) Adams, Robert Mathew (Bobby) Byrne, Edd J. Roush, William Jeremiah (Billy) Murray, Henry Clement (Heinie) Peitz, Ralph Stuart Davis, Bernhard (Barney) Dreyfuss, Mrs. Florence (Wolf) Dreyfuss, James J. (Jim) Long, Braven Dyer, George Leonard Moreland, John Kinley Tener, Irwin Martin Howe, Robert Daniel Emslie.

Now, bear in mind, those are only the ones who I've been successful in discovering quotes for. They might be a lot more who I can't find quotes for. And some of them might include:

Christy Mathewson, Mordecai Peter (Three-Fingerd) Brown, Frank Leroy Chance, Claude Cassius Ritchey, Charles Louis (Deacon) Phillippe, Samuel Howard (Howie) Camnitz, Johnny Kling, Joseph Bert Tinker, Grover Cleveland (Pete) Alexander, Joseph Jerome (Iron-Man) McGinnity, Clarence Howeth (Ginger) Beaumont, Frederick Tenney, William Frederick (Bill) Dahlen, Jacob Ellsworth Daubert, Roger Phillip Bresnahan, John Bernard (Hans) Lobert

Sports Writers who might have supported Wagner as best ever:
Richard John (Dick) Guy, Dr. Alfred R. Cratty, Edward Farguhar Balinger, Havey J. Boyle, Davis James Walsh, Harry Keck, Charles Joseph(Chilly) Doyle, Chester L. (Chet) Smith, Julius Lewis.

NL Umpires who might have supported Wagner as best ever:
Henry Francis (Hank) O'Day, James E. (John) Johnstone, Charles (Cy) Rigler
Malcolm Wayne Eason, Ernest Cosmas Quigley, Thomas J. Lynch.

So even if every single one of the above 'supposed supporters' of Wagner's had come out & vouched for him as the best ever, that is still only 31 more supporters. And where would that have left us.

With 64 Wagner supporters, out of 348, 18.39%. And that would have lowered TC's percentage of advantage from 80.75% down to 73.56%. That would be more competitive, but still less than 2-1 experts of small ball.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

04-09-2006, 02:17 PM

Do you have Honus' relative slugging numbers handy? Just curious. Thanks.
I do. Did it when I was doing Ty/Honus decline phases. Here it is.

How Ty/Honus did before/after the age of 30:
Relative Slg. Ave. Red connotates 'was better that year'.

-----Ty----------------Honus
1906--1.18--age 19
1907--1.44
1908--1.49
1909--1.58
1910--1.65
1911--1.64-----------1898--1.16--age 24
1912--1.64-----------1899--1.31
1913--1.54-----------1900--1.50
1914--1.50-----------1901--1.35
1915--1.42-----------1902--1.38
1916--1.44-----------1903--1.41

------------------------------------Decline phase, age 30

1917--1.72-----------1904--1.54
1918--1.57-----------1905--1.44
1919--1.39-----------1906--1.39
1920--1.13-----------1907--1.59
1921--1.42-----------1908--1.70
1922--1.39-----------1909--1.45
1923--1.18-----------1910--1.21
1924--1.11-----------1911--1.34
1925--1.43-----------1912--1.31
1926--1.25-----------1913--1.06
1927--1.14-----------1914--0.93
1928--1.03-----------1915--1.23
---------------------1916--1.08
---------------------1917--0.86 - 74 games

DoubleX

04-09-2006, 02:20 PM

I can understand that rankings like this can be quite abstract and theoretical. And perhaps at the end of the day, they mean nothing. But they can be fun too.

I do not think I am really qualified to make pronouncements and pontificate either. One of the things which has always guided me, is that those who saw Hans, (and Ty, and Babe) were quite vocal in their pronouncements. I tabulate those who believed what. And so far, I have found that a really decisive, over-whelming really consensus of the real experts on that kind of play, favored Ty Cobb. And Honus Wagner next.

It might be hard to compare Cobb/Ruth, but not Cobb/Wagner. They were exactly comparable type players. Specialized in small ball skills. Sure, we make our adjustments for era a tiny bit, parks, leagues. But those who knew small ball best, who made their living at it for years, and then managed/coached for decades, favored Ty by 80.75%, Honus 10.41%, and Babe 8.83%. That is not close. No room for error. Decisive, identifying, end of story.

Those players of that era are the only real experts, NOT the Bill James clones who came 65 years later, never saw a deadball game in his life, and couldn't imagine the values of that age.

So, those are who I listen to. Even the pre-1900 guys, who were expected to favor their own players, didn't. They favored Cobb.

37 prominent pre-1900 guys all came out for TC.

Cap Anson, Ned Hanlon, Willie Keeler, Charles Comiskey, Clark Griffith, Francis Richter, Tim Murnane, Sam Crane, Connie Mack, Cy Young, Wilbert Robinson, Hughie Jennings, Chief Zimmer, Jake Morse, Kid Gleason, Bill Dinneen, Tom Connelly, George Stallings, Nick Altrock, John B. Sheridan, Jimmie McAleer, Bill Phelon, Arlie Latham, MacLean Kennedy, Ban Johnson, Edson Brewston, Henry Edwards, Ernie Lanigan, Hugh Fullerton, Gordon Mackay, Fred Logan, Mike Kilroy, Billy Alvord, Bobby Lowe, Harry Davis, Al Maul.

All told, that is 37 out of 256 Cobb supporters, or 14.45%, were from pre-1900.

One of the things which modern people forget, is that before Forbes Field opened, as the first modern, steel/concrete stadium, the Pirates played in a ballpark which featured foul lines of 400 feet down each one!! That humongous OF expanse cut down the power numbers of the Pirate hitters drastically.

But Honus overcame that drastic handicap and dominated his NL rivals, who had better parks to hit in.

Here are the Honus supporters, who I've been able to locate quotes for.

John Joseph McGraw, William Joseph (Bill) Klem, Wesley Branch Rickey, Miller James Huggins
Edward Grant Barrow, Samuel Earl Crawford, John Henry Gruber, Henry Louis (Lou) Gehrig,
William Boyd (Deacon) McKechnie, James Thomas (Jimmy) Burke, William J. (Bill) McGoogan, Jr., Fred Clifford Clarke, Orval Overall, John Joseph Evers, Max George Carey, Samuel James (Jimmy) Sheckard, Michael Joseph Kelley, Albert Fielding Lang, Thomas William Leach, George Lange (Highpockets) Kelly, Charles Benjamin (Babe) Adams, Robert Mathew (Bobby) Byrne, Edd J. Roush, William Jeremiah (Billy) Murray, Henry Clement (Heinie) Peitz, Ralph Stuart Davis, Bernhard (Barney) Dreyfuss, Mrs. Florence (Wolf) Dreyfuss, James J. (Jim) Long, Braven Dyer, George Leonard Moreland, John Kinley Tener, Irwin Martin Howe, Robert Daniel Emslie.

Now, bear in mind, those are only the ones who I've been successful in discovering quotes for. They might be a lot more who I can't find quotes for. And some of them might include:

Christy Mathewson, Mordecai Peter (Three-Fingerd) Brown, Frank Leroy Chance, Claude Cassius Ritchey, Charles Louis (Deacon) Phillippe, Samuel Howard (Howie) Camnitz, Johnny Kling, Joseph Bert Tinker, Grover Cleveland (Pete) Alexander, Joseph Jerome (Iron-Man) McGinnity, Clarence Howeth (Ginger) Beaumont, Frederick Tenney, William Frederick (Bill) Dahlen, Jacob Ellsworth Daubert, Roger Phillip Bresnahan, John Bernard (Hans) Lobert

Sports Writers who might have supported Wagner as best ever:
Richard John (Dick) Guy, Dr. Alfred R. Cratty, Edward Farguhar Balinger, Havey J. Boyle, Davis James Walsh, Harry Keck, Charles Joseph(Chilly) Doyle, Chester L. (Chet) Smith, Julius Lewis.

NL Umpires who might have supported Wagner as best ever:
Henry Francis (Hank) O'Day, James E. (John) Johnstone, Charles (Cy) Rigler
Malcolm Wayne Eason, Ernest Cosmas Quigley, Thomas J. Lynch.

So even if every single one of the above 'supposed supporters' of Wagner's had come out & vouched for him as the best ever, that is still only 31 more supporters. And where would that have left us.

With 64 Wagner supporters, out of 348, 18.39%. And that would have lowered TC's percentage of advantage from 80.75% down to 73.56%. That would be more competitive, but still less than 2-1 experts of small ball.

Bill Burgess

Bill, how reliable do you think these old opinions are? I ask because I think there could be a lot of variables in play, such as:

1) The quotes you've found might just be what that player felt at that time. If they were asked the same question a week earlier or week later, they might have said something different.

2) How versed in baseball history were the players back then? Players nowadays, for the most part, don't seem all that familiar with the game's history and tradition. I'm guessing the players back then had a greater interest in the game's history, but that brings me to my next point...

3) I was looking at some of the people you have quoted. Let's single out Gehrig for example. Given the limitations of media coverage at that time, I imagine it was very difficult to get a good impression of how players from previous generations played except from heresay. I believe you have Gehrig supporting Wagner over Cobb. He played against Cobb, albeit at the end of Cobb's career, but he could probably get a good picture of Cobb's skill. But how much do you think he actually saw of Wagner? A couple of pictures? Maybe he caught a game at the Polo Grounds on a few occassions when the Pirates were in town to play the Giants at the very end of Wagner's career and when Gehrig was a young child?

Anyway, my point is, given the limitations of the day, I don't really think the players were the best judges of talent that they weren't frequently exposed to.

Bill Burgess

04-09-2006, 02:20 PM

gehrigfan

04-09-2006, 02:21 PM

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Hornsby
5. Foxx
6. Bonds
7. Musial
8. Mays
9. Aaron
10. DiMaggio

I love guys that hit for power AND average...and collect RBI's.

Bill Burgess

04-09-2006, 02:25 PM

Honus Wagner had a great bat but he didn't hit the long ball enough to be considered in my Top 10 All-Time. There are guys that hit for average and then there are home run hitters, but to be considered in the Top 10 of All-Time, you have to be able to do both.
Before the Pirates moved into Forbes Field in 1909, they played in a ballpark which featured foul lines out to 400 feet, down each line! That meant, few to no homers! Unless they were inside the park jobs.

Totally suppressed Pirate power numbers. Still was able to post these impressive stats.

Slugging %
1899-.494-5
1900-.573-1
1901-.494-6
1902-.463-1
1903-.518-2
1904-.520-1
1905-.505-2
1906-.459-2
1907-.513-1
1908-.542-1
1909-.489-1
1910-.432-7
1911-.507-3
1912-.496-3
1915-.422-8

Total Bases
1899-282-5
1900-302-1
1901-271-4
1902-247-2
1903-265-3
1904-255-1
1905-277-3
1906-237-1
1907-264-1
1908-308-1
1909-242-1
1910-240-5
1911-240-9
1912-277-3
1915-239-5
Car-4862-20

Triples
1900-22-1
1902-16-3
1903-19-1
1904-14-2
1905-14-7
1907-14-3
1908-19-1
1911-16-6
1912-20-2
1915-17-2
Car-252-3

Home Runs
1898-10-2
1899-7-6
1901-6-9
1902-3-5
1903-5-9
1905-6-6
1907-6-4
1908-10-2
1909-5-5
1911-9-8
1915-6-8

Adjusted OPS+
1899-142-8
1900-175-1
1901-160-6
1902-159-1
1903-161-3
1904-187-1
1905-174-2
1906-168-2
1907-187-1
1908-205-1
1909-173-1
1910-134-7
1911-156-2
1912-145-3
Car-150-31

Extra-Base Hits
1898-42-9
1899-63-4
1900-71-1
1901-54-4
1902-49-1
1903-54-1
1904-62-1
1905-52-3
1906-49-2
1907-58-1
1908-68-1
1909-54-1
1910-46-7
1911-48-7
1912-62-3
1915-55-3
Car-993-27

gehrigfan

04-09-2006, 02:29 PM

DoubleX

04-09-2006, 02:57 PM

csh19792001

04-09-2006, 03:20 PM

A big reason why Wagner's slugging percentage is so low is because he played in the deadball era. So unless you are going to make adjustments for era, your system is inherently biased against deadball era players (and probably overly-favors players from the last 15 years).

Absolutely, XX.

Honus Wagner was one hell of a power hitter, gehrigfan. Don't let the raw numbers fool you. Forbes was no a good park for either runs or homeruns (or slugging, for that matter).

And as long as we're making era adjustments, I'll keep citing Schell's latest book.

These totals are careers through 2003, adjusted to a 1977-92 offensive context. It takes into account park, handedness adjustments, and the the average spread from the league mean (standard deviation) of every offensive event (which approximates league strength).

Here's the link. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=26497&highlight=schell%27s+fully+adjusted)

I think this is the most fair assessment anyone has yet come up with (based on statistical analysis alone).

Adjusted Slugging:
1. Ruth .673
2. Williams .628
3. Hornsby .597
4 (tie). Bonds .584
4. (tie) Gehrig .584
6. Dimaggio .582
7. Mays .566
8. McGwire .556
9. Mantle .554
10. Musial .553
11. Joe Jackson .552
12. Honus Wagner .551
13. Foxx .550
14. Cobb .550
15. Stovey .548
16. Greenberg .546
17. Aaron .546
18. Charlie Hickman .543
19. Manny Ramirez .542
20. Mize .539

Bill Burgess

04-09-2006, 05:14 PM

Wagner slugged .466 for his career. The lowest SLG. on my Top 10 List is Hank Aaron at .555 and he's your home run king to date. My list is heavily influenced by batting avg. and SLG., and really doesn't take too much else into consideration. In my opinion the greatest all-round player was probably Willie Mays, but a .302 lifetime batting average drops him on my All-Time list because again, I place more importance on AVG. and SLG.
No, no, no. That's not how we do it on Fever. Pre-1920, the players didn't have the same access to the HR weapon. And one really needs that to achieve good stat separation from the pack.

We have all long known that the deadball sluggers, Brouthers, Delahanty, Wagner, Crawford, Lajoie, Cobb, Jackson, Speaker, Cravath, etc. were disadvantaged by their era, with respect to relative slugging ave. And Wagner was further disadvantaged by his ballpark. Until Forbes Field opened, his home park had a massive OF. 400 feet down each foul line!

And Wagner still dominated his less disadvantaged NL rivals. Here are some relative stats, for your perusal.

Relative Stats:

courtesy of David Kent:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rel Rel Through 2003, over 5,000 PA, indexed and park adjusted.
Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
16 102 7 Hank Greenberg 6061 157.3 113.5 143.9
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
21 122 11 Joe DiMaggio 7657 155.6 112.7 142.9
17 78 12 Johnny Mize 7351 157.0 114.9 142.1
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
22 83 15 Hank Aaron 13919 155.2 114.6 140.6
18 54 16 Dick Allen 7295 156.7 116.8 140.0
20 53 17 Willie Mays 12480 156.0 116.8 139.2
25 52 18 Mike Piazza 6007 154.7 117.0 137.7
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
38 192 20 Willie Stargell 9017 147.1 110.0 137.1
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
10 6 24 Pete Browning 5315 163.2 128.0 135.3
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
48 215 27 Albert Belle 6669 142.9 108.9 134.0
33 60 28 Nap Lajoie 10239 150.0 116.1 133.9
35 86 29 Ralph Kiner 6247 148.0 114.4 133.7
40 111 30 Mike Schmidt 10046 146.8 113.2 133.6
41 131 31 Sam Thompson 6497 145.4 111.9 133.5
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
42 159 33 Ken Griffey Jr. 8161 144.0 110.9 133.1
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
36 77 35 Willie McCovey 9681 147.7 114.9 132.9
43 153 36 Alex Rodriguez 5671 143.9 111.1 132.7
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
46 158 38 Sam Crawford 10353 143.5 110.9 132.5
93 514 39 Juan Gonzalez 7014 133.3 100.8 132.5
49 163 40 Frank Howard 7346 142.8 110.7 132.2
57 226 41 Jeff Heath 5540 140.4 108.6 131.8
64 272 42 Wally Berger 5636 138.8 107.2 131.6
39 66 43 Harry Heilmann 8683 147.0 115.7 131.2
30 35 44 Jim Thome 6420 150.9 119.8 131.0
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
44 118 46 Hack Wilson 5454 143.7 112.8 130.9
50 125 47 Harry Stovey 6832 142.8 112.5 130.3
58 165 48 Babe Herman 6134 140.2 110.6 129.6
66 205 49 Darryl Strawberry 6325 138.6 109.3 129.3
102 419 50 Sammy Sosa 8462 132.4 103.1 129.3

Rel Rel
Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
10 6 24 Pete Browning 5315 163.2 128.0 135.3
59 7 267 Billy Hamilton 7544 140.0 127.6 112.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
192 12 582 Roy Thomas 6409 123.6 126.3 97.3
31 13 74 Edgar Martinez 8113 150.7 125.7 125.1
52 14 156 Eddie Collins 11525 142.4 124.4 118.1
28 15 53 Jason Giambi 5460 152.7 123.9 128.8
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
140 17 420 Rickey Henderson 13316 128.6 123.4 105.2
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
126 19 372 Wade Boggs 10711 130.0 123.0 107.0
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
82 22 246 George Gore 6104 135.0 122.0 113.1
76 23 208 Gene Tenace 5504 136.3 121.2 115.0
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
232 26 531 Mike Hargrove 6649 121.0 120.8 100.2
105 27 285 Joe Morgan 11278 132.1 120.5 111.6
34 28 54 Elmer Flick 6293 149.2 120.5 128.7
56 29 118 Cap Anson 11292 140.9 120.4 120.5
60 30 137 Jesse Burkett 9525 139.5 120.3 119.2
37 31 60 Gary Sheffield 8026 147.5 120.1 127.4
419 32 705 Eddie Stanky 5332 109.0 120.0 88.9
143 33 351 Topsy Hartsel 5697 127.9 119.9 108.0
120 34 300 Rod Carew 10422 131.0 119.9 111.1
30 35 44 Jim Thome 6420 150.9 119.8 131.0
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
103 37 260 John Olerud 8360 132.3 119.6 112.7
81 38 194 Arky Vaughan 7605 135.4 119.5 115.9
107 39 254 Ken Singleton 8529 132.1 119.2 112.9
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
99 44 209 Tony Gwynn 10187 132.6 117.8 114.8
47 45 71 Chipper Jones 6064 143.2 117.8 125.4
388 46 649 Richie Ashburn 9624 110.9 117.8 93.1
111 47 226 Jackie Robinson 5698 131.7 117.7 114.0
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
167 49 345 Roger Bresnahan 5262 126.0 117.5 108.5
118 50 229 Ross Youngs 5214 131.3 117.4 113.9
__________________
Dave Kent

1905 Giants

04-09-2006, 07:57 PM

All Time Shortstop: 2nd (behind A-Rod)

All time Position Players Ranks Behind:
(No Particular Order)
1. Babe Ruth
2. Ty Cobb
3. Lou Gehrig
4. Alex Rodriguez
5. Willie Mays
6. Ted Williams
7. Stan Musial
8. Barry Bonds (Say what you will, he's good)
9. Joe Morgan
10. Rogers Hornsby

csh19792001

04-09-2006, 08:13 PM

No, no, no. That's not how we do it on Fever.

William-
I believe using mean adjusted measures without complete park adjustmetns actually fails to do Wagner justice. The source I cited takes into account seperaton from the league mean in slugging percentage, but it's also much more sophisticated than that. Wagner played his first 3 years in a park that was equally as bad for homeruns (in comparison to the average league park). He played almost 10 years at Exposition Park, which was no hitters' paradise, and then moved to Forbes for the remainder of his career, which was a very good park for triples, but bad for doubles and atrocious for homeruns (so much so, in fact, that the Pirates would hit twice as many homeruns on the road than in their own home park!!)

Looking at mean adjustments and standard, omnibus park effects is a good start, but we should try to look deeper- i.e., if a guy was a strict homerun hitter, the homerun factor will be more pertinent to the effect his park had on his career. Similarly, for a guy who pretty much only hits singles, looking at the BA factor will be far more important.

People make the mistake of making blanket conclusions based on the "park factors" from baseball-reference. As far as I know, the park factor they use ONLY looks at runs, and doesn't even attempt to look any deeper than that.

That's a big pitfall, and it's probably a large part of the reason why Wagner comes out 11th on my list and 34th on yours.

csh19792001

04-09-2006, 08:16 PM

All time Position Players Ranks Behind:
(No Particular Order)
1. Babe Ruth
2. Ty Cobb
3. Lou Gehrig
4. Alex Rodriguez
5. Willie Mays
6. Ted Williams
7. Stan Musial
8. Barry Bonds (Say what you will, he's good)
9. Joe Morgan
10. Rogers Hornsby

Where's Honus? What in God's name is Joe Morgan doing anywhere near him, much less ahead of him? :ughh

1905 Giants

04-09-2006, 08:40 PM

I know that Wagner has a lot of stats supporting himself, but hmm... its kind of difficult to explain why I consider Morgan better, but I do

Maybe because of his all around good status (I understand Wagner was good overall too) his winning teams (Wagner as well), his reputation by basis of other players (again, Wagner has the same) and playing in an era that was highly competetive and Fully Integrated

Sultan_1895-1948

04-09-2006, 09:32 PM

stanle2725

04-25-2006, 02:10 PM

I met Wagner once. It was my first ballgame. He was a coach. I remember so well because I was 11 and he was so hideous looking. He hadn't shaved in 4 or 5 days and was grizzled and toothless. I was there with a bigmouthed friend. We worked our way right behind the firstbase dugout late in the game. My friend for innings kept begging Honus for a ball. How was I to know he was such a great man, on the field and off? He was the first ballplayer to lift weights in the offseason to stay in shape. He was a simple person true of values and courage.
As a man, a person of worth, Bonds, Ruth, Cobb, Williams don't deserve to be in the same shrine as Wagner.

julusnc

04-25-2006, 02:15 PM

538280

04-25-2006, 05:53 PM

Where's Honus? What in God's name is Joe Morgan doing anywhere near him, much less ahead of him? :ughh

I think Joe Morgan is near Honus, but even I wouldn't argue he's better.

Why is it you like to trash on Joe so much, Chris? I would think, based on your other posts, you'd like Morgan, but you don't for some strange reason. Remember when you were talking about Roy White (one of the few things we've agreed on), and you said how his walks were very valuable because he could run fast and steal a base and put his team in a better position with those walks than an Adam Dunn/Jason Giambi type? Remember? Morgan was the same, except even more so. Rickey Henderson (another player you trash on) was like that as well.

Have you ever heard of Rickey rallies (walk to get on first, steal second, and boom you've got a guy in scoring position right away.) Rickey did that all the time, as did Morgan. I was watching a high school game recently, there's this kid on my town's high school team who's extremely fast, and knows how to take pitches. He walked, stole second, stole third, and scored on a ground out. No hits, but you've got a run! Boom, right off the bat. The other team has no idea what has hit them.

You constantly talk about value beyond the numbers, and Rickey and Joe had that in abundance, and yet when you harp on that value with guys like Cobb and Collins you ignore it with them. Why is this?

jLev

04-25-2006, 08:53 PM

1. Ruth
2. Mays
3. Cobb
4. Wagner
5. Aaron

csh19792001

04-25-2006, 09:29 PM

I think Joe Morgan is near Honus, but even I wouldn't argue he's better.

I was shocked at the incredulity of the statement. Forwarding the claim that Honus Wagner and Joe Morgan aren't in the same class isn't "trashing" Morgan by any means. It's the most reasonable and substantiated position.

In fact, speaking of trashing, Morgan has actually gone up vastly in my estimation in the last 3-4 years. I'm merely still not convinced he was greater and/or more valuable than both Collins and Hornsby, though. Hell, Joe Morgan might very well might have been, but I haven't heard any compelling, in depth, truly research-based arguments as to why he deserves that title. The suppositions I HAVE seen are predicated mostly stats intermingled with completely arbitrary adjustments to stats that took years to develop (which, by the way, completely belies the whole purpose of the stats and negates their validity in the process).

And what I mean when I say "compelling" is something akin to what Bill put thousands of hours into- and now shares with us- copiously studying the life and career of Ty Cobb. You gotta understand my frame of reference, Chris....I'm from NY, and I grew up in a COMPLETELY RABID Yankee family. Babe Ruth was always God and nobody could possibly come close to him. Like you, for years I looked at the stats, saw the domination, and didn't question them- they're numbers. The facts, right? They tell what happened objectively, and that's that....correct?

But I kept reading and kept learning about baseball history, and several years of study in far more depth than I ever had, I changed my mind- and I'm far from alone. Consider that before Bill and I showed up here, almost noone supported the proposition that Ty Cobb as the greatest ever. Last time we put it to a poll, I believe it was 44 supporters- more than half of what Ruth obtained. Changing/convincing that many minds about something so incredibly fundamental to the baseball die hard speaks volumes.

I'm not trying to turn this into the same old debate, nor am I trying to say that I have a monopoly on the truth of the matter.

What I'm trying to say is that if you're privy to some erudite work on the life and times of Joe Morgan (i.e., not something cursory I could find using a google search), I'm all for reading it. If I'm drastically undervaluing his contributions beyond the statistics (which is, of course, quite possible), I'd need to read extensively about it to believe he's deserving of the kind of (almost unique) accolades you so readily afford him.

Perhaps the converse may be true of you regarding Collins as well.

From which sources have you read extensively regarding Joe Morgan's career? You seem to make your assertions on Little Joe in the tone as if you have had that kind of extensive exposure to this sort of material.

Sultan_1895-1948

04-26-2006, 02:38 AM

I'm from NY, and I grew up in a COMPLETELY RABID Yankee family. Babe Ruth was always God and nobody could possibly come close to him.

Hey, your family sounds cool. Are we on for Thanksgiving? :D

Chris, have you put in the same time on Ruth as you have for Cobb? Hardly seems possible with Grantland Burgess creating a heap of Cobb material that would cause Mt. Everest's knees to quiver, but it's possible. I'm wondering if it's a case of not going deep enough with both to make a fair assessment. Cobb has a lot going for him, no doubt; I have him 2nd and don't plan on moving him any time soon, but when it comes to flip flopping them or not, maybe it simply comes down to what style you value more.

538280

04-26-2006, 05:27 AM

I was shocked at the incredulity of the statement. Forwarding the claim that Honus Wagner and Joe Morgan aren't in the same class isn't "trashing" Morgan by any means. It's the most reasonable and substantiated position.

I would agree with you there. As much as I like Joe Morgan there is no case for him above Honus Wagner. I didn't think you saying that was trashing on him-just things you said on the other thread, saying Morgan was becoming overrrated on this board, that you're sick of people "torturing numbers to come up with the answer of 'Joe Morgan'". I was more talking about that.

From which sources have you read extensively regarding Joe Morgan's career? You seem to make your assertions on Little Joe in the tone as if you have had that kind of extensive exposure to this sort of material.

I read some of the book Late Innings and The Diamond Appraised, which includes a little bit on Joe, and I also read an article about his life in some magazine a long time ago, forgot which one. I haven't read all that much about him, but at least some. I've also read many things on the '75-'76 Reds which of course had lots of things on Joe as well.

csh19792001

04-26-2006, 06:26 AM

Hey, your family sounds cool. Are we on for Thanksgiving? :D.

Absolutely! Send me your info. :p

Chris, have you put in the same time on Ruth as you have for Cobb? I have him 2nd and don't plan on moving him any time soon, but when it comes to flip flopping them or not, maybe it simply comes down to what style you value more.

You might very well be right regarding stylistic differences- or perhaps projecting what we admire in people (manifested in baseball players).

To answer your question, no, I haven't put as much time into Ruth as I have Cobb, but I have put a ton of time into Babe. I've read 3 of the best Ruth bios (Creamer, Smesler, Wagenheim), and parts of the ancillary ones, all of the peripheral stuff in all of the other bios/era, as well as a ton of stuff online. I have both the half hour and hour Sportscentury Ruth specials on tape at home, and they're both outstanding. Did you see them?

The hour Sportscentury is priceless- they interviewed the few living pitchers that faced him, all of the prominent authors speak, and Julia has a ton to say about her dad. Lots of great film clips (including audio) too. The part about the Called Shot still gives me chills, even though I know it's undoubtedly aprochryphal.

The author James Fountain says (speaking on the called shot): "Isn't it better to wonder whether he actually did it, instead of having them play it from 6 different angles and having 40 reporters hounding him after the game?" They also interview the few players/sportswriters still alive that actually witnessed the event.

And you're right, it's still not enough. If you have book recommendations, I'd love to hear them- hopefully I'll have the time to actually read consistently this summer (that'll be a first in a long time for me).

Why is it that the baseball lit world is so devoid of biographies of great players? Does a (genuine) Eddie Collins bio even exist? Joe Morgan? I doubt it, or I would have found them in searching awhile ago....and I wish the list was that short- there are a TON of alltime greats that have been neglected, for one reason or another.

Bill Burgess

04-26-2006, 07:55 AM

Does a (genuine) Eddie Collins bio even exist?
Not at this moment. But Rick Huhn, the author of The Sizzler, is working on a bio on Eddie as we speak.

I know this because I'm helping him on his genealogy on it. Same with Charles Alexander on his bio on Speaker.

Honus Wagner Rules

04-26-2006, 09:06 AM

earlywynnfan

04-27-2006, 11:09 AM

"if you were drafting a team from all the players in history and had at least a dozen total in the draft, I'd seriously consider drafting Honus or Josh first because they're so far ahead of the rest at their position"

Jim, I thought I was the only one who looked at it like this. I totally agree with you, and I would put Mike Schmidt in the same category: no competition. Do I think Mays was absolutely fantastic? Definitely, but I if I lost out on drafting him, there are several guys I'd "settle" for. But not Wagner!

Ken

wamby

04-27-2006, 11:31 AM

In a recent thread I started about Jackie Robinson, Willie May and the Boston Red Sox, I posted an article about Jackie's tryout with the Red Sox in 1945. Supposedly, while Jackie was on the field someone yelled, "Get that N*%^@* of off the field!" Supposedly, it was Eddie Collins. I've never heard about Collins having such animosity towards black players. Did Collins have any "racial incidents" during his playing days?

Ive read that it may have been Joe Cronin or, more likely, Tom Yawkey, if it happened at all. As AL President, Joe Cronin refused to meet with Jackie Robinson when Robinson was at the World Series to throw out the first pitch.

How long long was Collins with the Red Sox front office? I wonder if he had anything to do with the Red Sox's unwillingness to integrate?

Brownie31

04-27-2006, 12:16 PM

Ive read that it may have been Joe Cronin or, more likely, Tom Yawkey, if it happened at all. As AL President, Joe Cronin refused to meet with Jackie Robinson when Robinson was at the World Series to throw out the first pitch.

How long long was Collins with the Red Sox front office? I wonder if he had anything to do with the Red Sox's unwillingness to integrate?

wamby:

Eddie Collins' lifespan was 1887-1951 so he could well have
had the typical prejudices of his generation. Personally, I do
not recall reading of any overt racism on his part like that of
Ty Cobb.

The New York Times obituary of Collins said he was a Red Sox
vice president at the time of his death.

He could well have been opposed to integrating the Red Sox,
but since it was eight years after his death that the team
finally integrated, he probably wasn't alone.

Brownie31

wamby

04-27-2006, 12:28 PM

wamby:

Eddie Collins' lifespan was 1887-1951 so he could well have
had the typical prejudices of his generation. Personally, I do
not recall reading of any overt racism on his part like that of
Ty Cobb.

The New York Times obituary of Collins said he was a Red Sox
vice president at the time of his death.

He could well have been opposed to integrating the Red Sox,
but since it was eight years after his death that the team
finally integrated, he probably wasn't alone.

Brownie31

My feeling is the same as yours is. I've never read that Collins was an overt racist. I feel very sure that there no lone voice saying the Red Sox should not integrate.

Bill Burgess

04-27-2006, 04:21 PM

My feeling is the same as yours is. I've never read that Collins was an overt racist. I feel very sure that there no lone voice saying the Red Sox should not integrate.

Eddie Collins was a Red Sox exec, 1933-51, his death. Ty introduced Eddie to Tom Yawkey, and recommened he hire on. Which he did.

jimmy9446

05-24-2006, 07:59 PM

i think that Honus Wagner is the greatest shortstop of all time, if he had played baseball today, he would be the best in th Major League

TheSandman

06-04-2006, 07:00 PM

I have him as my #4 all time.

baseball junkie

06-05-2006, 12:24 AM

I scanned all the posts and didn't see anyone examine this question from this particular angle so I intend to at least attempt to make a reasonable argument for my point of view. I intend to focus on Wagner's impact rather than his amazing statistics.

The City of Pittsburgh owes its baseball tradition and the continued existence of the Pirates to Honus Wagner.

The Pirates existed for 18 years before acquiring Wagner. During that time, the franchise played in both the National League and the now defunct American Association. The team played 2,233 games, winning 1,006 and losing 1,227 -- a 45% franchise winning percentage. That is not horrible. The team, however, never finished in first place during the pre-Wagner era.

(Point in fact: the 1890 team posted a 23 - 113 record, that comes out to an astonishing .169 winning percentage.)

On December 8, 1899 the Pirates obtained Wagner from the Louisville Colonels in a mammoth trade that included 15 players and one manager. The Pirates acquired Hall of Fame Manager Fred Clarke, Hall of Fame players Rube Waddell and Honus Wagner plus 9 other players and a $25,000 cash payment. In exchange the Colonels got Hall of Fame pitcher Jake Chesbro and three other players. The Louisville Colonels never played another game.

In 1900, Wagner's first year with the Pirates, the team's winning percentage improved to .568%. In 1901, 1902 and 1903 the Pirates won the National League pennant. Between 1900 and 1917, Wagner's tenure, the Pirates won 90 or more games 9 times -- winning four NL pennants and the 1909 World Series Championship.

During Wagner's 18-year tenure the Pirates' winning percentage improved to an impressive 57%. The team record with Wagner was 1,538 - 1,161.

Not only did Wagner anchor a winning team and lead it to four pennants and one championship, he was the Pirates' first truly great player. Arguably the best Pirates player in the pre-Wagner era was an outfielder/pitcher named Elmer Smith. In 14 professional seasons, Smith was a .310 hitter and he posted 75 wins. In 1887 Smith won 34 games en route to a league-best 2.94 ERA. Smith played parts of 7 seasons with the Pirates and obviously he does not even come close to comparing with the greatness of Honus Wagner.

An almost unbelievable professional 88 teams folded between 1871 and 1915, without Wagner the Pirates might have been one of them.

How many teams owe their existence to a single player?

Of Wagner's 2,775 games played, 1,887 were at short stop. Can any player of this or any other era say their team would potentially cease to exist without them?

Would the Yankees disappear without Derek Jeter? Would the Orioles vanish without Miguel Tejada? Would the Cardinals have folded without Ozzie Smith? Would the Cubs have become extinct without Ernie Banks? Would the White Sox have experienced disintegration without Luis Aparicio or Luke Appling? No is the answer to all of those questions.

Based solely on the notion that I think Wagner, who has been retired for 89 years, was and is the only short stop in the history of the game to keep his franchise and baseball alive in a major city, I rate him as the best short stop to have ever played the game.

E.Banks#14

06-11-2006, 08:44 PM

Honus appeared in a comedy film titled "Spring Fever". It was Honus second (and last) appearance in a film. The movie short was produced by Vitagraph Studios in 1909 (released in 1919), and in it, Honus Wagner taught a young boy the skill of batting. That boy was Moses Horwitz (a.k.a. Moe Howard) who later gained fame as one of the Three Stooges. Another role in the short film was played by Moe's brother, Samuel Horwitz (Shemp Howard). Imagine Honus, Moe, and Shemp together. :laugh

Here are some pictures of Honus in the film:
1002810029

538280

06-23-2006, 08:35 PM

I used to rate Wagner 7th, with new evidence from my ranking system I have actually moved him up to 4th, quite the jump for Honus. My reasoning and a full explanation of my system (as well as the list it generates) can be found in the "New Rating System" thread in the Stat forum.

barzilla

06-23-2006, 09:27 PM

I'm going top five right now because I haven't really looked at cross-positional analysis yet. All I know is that he is the top shortstop by a very wide margin.

Bill Burgess

06-24-2006, 01:40 PM

I'm reposting a post by BaseballHistoryNut. It's all about Wagner, so I think it fits alright here nicely.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=586593&postcount=135

Jim,

Thou hast broken my heart. Little Joe over Honus? Not even Chris went that far, & he's Joe's strongest advocate. And over Hornsby too. My itty bitty heart crumples. Oh well. I will work around these things. Have you given your Top 20 position players yet?

Bill

My Dear Bill,

Relax. I'm going to unbreak at least one quadrant of thine heart.

Re-read all of my above posts, for god's sake. Didst thou not see the levity and underlying point which coursed through them? If not, consulteth Sultan.

But yeah, damn right I'll take Morgan over Hornsby. NO PROBLEM, NO ISSUE, NOT A CLOSE CALL. If I owned a baseball team, it would be my beloved friend. I have already lost one beloved friend, not to mention a parent I loved more than anyone else in my life, to cancer. I would not want to lose my beloved baseball team to cancer. And Rogers Hornsby was cancer.

The question for me is not whether Hornsby was as good as Morgan (NO), but whether he was as good as Collins and/or Robinson. On paper, yeah, for sure--which is something I'll NOT give him about Morgan. But I'd sure take either of those guys ahead of Hornsby, even though I must "rate" Hornsby at #2, ahead of those two great players and people. Maybe I would take the great Gehringer ahead of Hornsby, too, but again....

Strictly on their records, and ignoring (for god-knows-what reason) what a world-class sucker of a rooster Hornsby was in every aspect (call him, perhaps, a "five-tool #@$#($*%)#), I agree Hornsby goes ahead of all those other guys. But I absolutely do NOT agree he goes ahead of Morgan, even if you ignore every miserable, flagitious, detestible aspect of him as a person.

HOWEVER:

As for Honus, I am never going to be persuaded to rate him as high as most history nuts do. With that said, though, it is one thing to drop him well below #2 or #3; it is wholly another to drop him to #19 or something. So....

I know he's tied with Tony Gwynn for more batting titles than any player not named "Ty Cobb," which is quite a feat. I also know he was always at, or near, the top of the NL in runs, RBI's, doubles, triples and total bases.

Perhaps your writing me that email will prove a key point in my evolution on the subject of Wagner. Let's see, here's where he stands on what I consider major categories, plus one I don't consider major (BA):

1. Batting average: 8 crowns (tied with Gwynn for #2); 4 other times in top 5;

2. OBP: FOUR crowns; SIX other times, top 5;

3. SLG: SIX crowns; three 2nds, two 3rds;

4. RUNS: TWO crowns; SIX other times, top 5;

5. TOTAL BASES: SIX crowns (this is getting serious); SEVEN other times, top 5;

6. DOUBLES: SEVEN crowns; SIX other times, top 5; #8 all-time;

7. TRIPLES: THREE crowns; three 2nds; two 3rds; #3 all-time (#1 who didn't play for Detroit).

8. HOME RUNS: ZERO crowns; FIVE top 5's;

9. RBI'S: FIVE crowns; NINE other times, top 5;

10. RUNS CREATED: SEVEN firsts; SIX other times, top 5;

11. EXTRA BASE HITS: SEVEN firsts; SIX other times, top 5;

12. TOTAL HITS: TWO firsts; TEN other times, top 5; #8, all-time.

13. STOLEN BASES: FIVE firsts; four other times, top 5; #10, all-time.

BILL? You still there?

You waiting for me to say I've had an epiphany of sorts? Well, OK, I have.

Here's what I've always seen in Wagner: Obviously a great player, with about 1/6 fewer errors at SS than his average contemporary SS (a very good figure), plus an excellent batting average on a consistent basis and tons of non-HR extra-base hits and tons of runs produced.

BUT, not as many runs produced, nor nearly as many non-HR XBH as Cobb or Speaker, and simply not as good an offensive player as those two giants. A much better defensive player than Cobb, but not nearly enough so to make up the diff, and nowhere near the defensive player Speaker was, nor as good a hitter.

And I still feel that way.

H O W E V E R,

After poring over all the above stats, this is a guy who was extremely consistent and always up near the leaders, if not THE leader, in all of the above stats. And just look at those stats. HR's were not available in his time, since, even though he played to age 43, he quit at the end of 1917. He took Forbes Field for all it was worth in terms of triples, but if that is to be a criticism of him, then Cobb and Crawford must suffer the same criticism for the way Detroit's stadium was built in their time, and Speaker's doubles record must be brushed aside altogether because of Fenway AND League.

And, in any event, Forbes and its predecessor (about which I know zilch) cannot explain a main who routinely is in the Top 5 in every one of the important stats for his era--both those which existed at the time, and those which didn't exist but, now that they do, are obviously crucial measuring sticks for Dead Ball players.

SO BILL, NO.

I cannot in good conscience say I would take Joe Morgan over this man. And I am not going to say it just for the sake of tweaking your sensibilities.

My source only gives "caught stealings" for one year, and Wagner's SB/CS ratio for that year is dreadful (22/15), but he was 41 then and any fair person should be loath to read too much into that year's ratio. I feel comfortable in saying Morgan must have been a better baserunner, however, and probably by a pretty good margin. Given how many triples Wagner racked up, however, I'm not at all sure Morgan would have out-homered him, had Wagner played when Morgan did. Certainly Wagner was a much bigger, stronger man.

I give Morgan a pretty big edge on defense. Wagner moved around a lot, and, although Win Shares has orgasms over his SS play, I suspect he'd have been a 3Bman or 2Bman in Morgan's time. But even if: (1) you DO put him at 2B; and (2) you DO give Morgan a fair-to-modest defensive edge; and (3) you DO give Morgan a good edge on the bases (clearly appropriate, IMO); and (4) you DO give Morgan a pretty good edge for a 69-year time-line adjustment and all those years he spent languishing in the Astrodome....

Well, you see it coming, I'm sure. There's just too damn much there.

Wagner's numbers are staggering in their BREADTH, much as Cobb's and Speaker's are. The three of them, essentially, are Dead-Ball-Era versions of Babe Ruth. NO, not as good, IMO, but the same kind of staggering, almost monotonously dominant greatness, and for a very long time.

So to sum up my thoughts, and thereby succinctly answer your question:

(1) YES, I take Morgan over Hornsby, and in a heartbeat. That's not going to change;

BUT, having really pored over The Flying Dutchman's numbers in an effort to get a full sense of "the 1874 man" (yeah, I know Lajoie was born that year, but is their any real doubt whose year it was?)....

(2) NO, I don't take Morgan over Wagner. I'm never going to agree with those who rate Wagner at #2 or #3, and I'll probably never rate him above 6 or 7 position players, nor above Lefty Grove. But I NOW know that Honus Wagner belongs, and will almost surely remain, in my Top 10.

As much as I love Little Joe, as proud as I am to have him as my #1 2B, as many snowball fights as they'll have in hell before I rate Hornsby over him....

I cannot seriously tell you I would take him over Wagner. I just finished doing the "devil's argument" trick, hypothesizing EVERYTHING in favor of Morgan, and it still came out in Wagner's favor.

That says it all, doesn't it?

Jim

Corn Beef Labia

06-24-2006, 01:49 PM

6th. But I could see a case for him in the top five.

ElHalo

06-24-2006, 03:35 PM

6th. But I could see a case for him in the top five.
Not for nothing, but you're almost assuredly going to have to change your user name if you actually want to stick around here. I personally have as filthy a mouth as you can get, but that really just doesn't fly here.

TonyK

06-26-2006, 01:29 AM

Where should you rank the best shortstop of all time? What intrigues me about Honus is how his peers raved about his fielding ability...at 1B, at 3B, and in the Outfield. I would place him somewhere in the Top 10.

yankillaz

06-26-2006, 07:54 AM

Fifth all-time, my top 5 list is:

1. Ty Cobb
2. Babe Ruth
3. Ted Williams
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Honus Wagner

westfield

08-21-2006, 03:18 PM

I have always ranked him 4th after Mays, Cobb, and Ruth.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-27-2006, 02:54 PM

Not sure of the details of this one. If I recall Honus was offered 65.00 a month to play for the Warren baseball club.

This is the reply sent from Honus (he signs it as John) to Albert Wagner. In it Honus agrees to the 65.00 per month and he also asks that they pay his way, "send ticket."

Mariano_Rivera

09-02-2006, 06:29 AM

Mariano_Rivera

09-02-2006, 07:02 PM

Nobody else seems brave enough to do it so I`ll take up the argument for A-Rod as the Greatest left-side of the infielder in history. I am a big Honus fan as well by the way. :clapping

Before I start I want to note that all stats I cite are not the players Actual stats. They are BP's translated stats which I believe adjust for era but not park.

A-Rod has not beaten Honus yet but he has some serious competition in Alex.

A-Rod's career EQA=.318

Honus's career EQA=.308

Thoughts: This is a fairly significant difference and can`t be ignored. By this measurment A-Rod was the better offfensive player of course A-Rod never suffered a period of decline like Honus. (If Honus' later year can be called a decline).

A-Rod's best single season EQA=.351

Wagner's best single season EQA=.351

Thoughts: Dead heat tie.

A-Rod's aerage EQA over his 3 year peak= .333 (.343, .331, .325)

Wagner's average EQA over his 3 year peak=.339 (.335 .351 .331)

Thoughts: Peak is defined as the best 3 (or 5) years in a row for the player in question. Their is another fairly significant difference in this as well. Wagner has the advantage here and really had an amazing late career surge that will be difficult for Alex to top.

A-Rod's aerage EQA over his 5 year peak= .327 (.351 .309 .321 .325 .331)

Wagner's average EQA over his 5 year peak=.335 (.351, .335, .326, .328, 337)

Thoughts: See thoughts for the 3 year peak. :crazy

Overall Notes on their Offense: A-Rod has a higher career EQA but Honus has better peaks and they are in a tie for their best offensive seasons. All of these offensive advantages for each player can be explained by the fact that A-Rod has not competed his career. He could put together another great 3 or 5 years and have a better peak and he could definitely top his career high of .351. On the flip side A-Rod will most likely eventually suffer a decline period and his advantage in career EQA will sink. I`d give them a tie offensively (based on what I expect Alex to do) and give A-Rod a great chance to pass Honus significantly.

Another type of offensive analysis (total EQR): Instead of using EQA which is a rate stat we can use EQR which is accumulative. For the sake of practicality we will compare Wagner's EQR up to age 30 to A-Rod's.

A-Rod's EQR by age 30=1,334

Wagner's EQR by age 30=863

A-Rod's EQR per year by age 30=103

Wagner's average EQR per year by age 30=108

A-Rods best year by age 30=2005 (144)

Wagner's best year by age 30=1900 (137)

A-Rod's average EQR over his best 3 years by age 30=137

Wagner's average EQR over his best 3 years by age 30=129

Summary: Wagner got off to a slower start but had a late career surge which A-Rod will have difficulty matching, however by age 30 A-Rod is better than Honus.

Defensively: I don`t really trust any defensive metrics but every single one seems to measure Honus as the greatest fielder in history right above or below Ozzie Smith (I put him below the Wizard of Oz myself). A-Rod is no slouch himself and is definitely deserving his GG awards and Torre is a fool and Jeter is selfish for making A-Rod move to third and leaving Jeter at short (though jeter could be an even worse 3rd baseman). That being said A-Rod is not in the class of Honus. Honus is the second greatest fielder in history, A-Rod is probably one of the best infielders of his era. Of course defense is less important than offense and because A-Rod is great himself the importance of that is moderately small compared to offense IMO.

Pitching: Okay I`m just joking

Different Aspects of offense: Instead of just using EQA as the tell all only stat I`ll list the comparisons of a few others (remember I`m using BP's translated stats)

Hitting for power: Honus had some very good power for his era and just broke the 600 HR line over a 20 year career with his best season being 1908 when he hit 51 HR. His best 3 year period was 1907-1910 when he hit a total of 118 HR which is a very impressive total. All in all Honus was one of the premier power hitters of his era and is quite impressive. That being said A-Rod totally dwarfs it. A-Rod has 479 and is nearing the 500 HR barrier at age 30. Barring injury he will break 500 at age 31. He is the youngest to ever hit 400 HR, he is the youngest to ever hit 450 HR, etc. His best season is 57, Babe Ruth would be proud of that. Over his best 3 year period he hit 157 HR, 39 more than Wagner. Alex has an enormous edge in power hitting and could pass Ruth and Aaron one day if all goes well.

Hitting for contact: When you adjust for era Wagner's edge over Rodriguez in BA shrinks significantly. Wagner was still better but not by much. His career average was .315 and still modestly better than A-Rod who hit .304 and who's BA will likely recede now that his prime is over. Wagner's best season was 1908 when he it .366 which is definitely significantly better than A-Rod's best (.355). When you compare 3 year peaks it's even more impressive. Wagner's 3 year peak had a BA of .358 which crushes A-Rod's .326.

Extra base hit Power: Alexander the Great has a career SLG% of .588 with his best season 2005 with an amazing .663 The Flying Dutchman was also amazing, he has a career of .572 which fails to match Alex but he had over .700 twice which A-Rod can`t even approach. His best season was an amazing .745 in, yes you guessed it, 1908. A-Rod's best was passed 4 times. But who was more consistent? Honus had over .600 7 times compared to Alex who had that 5 times. A-Rod is more consistent according to this because of him playing less years. I`m pretty split here. Honus has a huge edge in single season but Alex is more consistent and has higher career numbers. I`ll give it to Rodriguez but saying Honus was better in this category is more than understandable.

Getting on Base=Honus had a .384 career OBP which is truly tremendous. His best season (again 1908) he had a .434 OBP. A-Rod however tops Honus in both respects. He has a career .439 OBP which is 5 points better thn Honus and his best season (2005) was .442 which also tops Wagner's significantly.

Baserunning: Wagner stole more total bases and was likely very good at what he did but since we don`t have CS data I`d prefer to just ignore this. However, its still an important area and Wagner clearly has the edge here.

Interesting Notes about A-Rod: A-Rod was the second clean 40-40 guy in history in 1998 2 years after Barroid Bonds achieved that feat in 1996. A-Rod was the youngest player to have several mileston HR (youngest to 450, youngest to 400, youngest to 100 etc.), A-Rod had a fantastic power season in 2002 when he hit 57 HR. A-Rod had 2,000 hits at a fairly young age. A-Rod has won 2 MVP awards, came in second once and had 8 MVP type seasons out of 11 complete seasons. Could past Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth on the all-time HR list barring injury.

Interesting Notes about Honus: Was widely regarded as the best player of his era until Ty Cobb came along. Had the equivalent of a 50-50 season in 1908 which is one of the greatest single season performances in history IMO. Was one of the first 5 inductees to the HoF. Was probably the most complete player in history (not best, most complete). Is widely regarded as a top 3 all time player in all time lists. Had an amazing late career surge that is topped by few. Was one of the few 200 WARP 3 players in history. He had 12 MVP type seasons in 17 years. Has the most expensive baseball card in history. Is the greatest left-side of the infielder in history. If anyone wants to add something let me know.

Final Verdict: A-Rod is the better all-around player by age 30 but clearly the Flying Dutchman's greatest strength has always been his late career surge. If A-Rod follows a normal career path (1 or 2 more great years and very very good production until age 34 then a steady decline) he will probably tie Honus or fall just short. However, in the unlikely event that A-Rod matches Wagner's late-career surge Alex could esily move from being compared to Honus Wagner to being compared to Babe Ruth. When I compare active players to historical players I compare what the active player has done at his age compared to what the other guy has done at that point in his career. I also project if somebody has a strange career path at the end of the their career like Honus. A-Rod has had the better career up to age 30 but because of the strange career of Honus it is unlikely that A-Rod will match his late career surge and therefore pass him significantly. Right now I would say A-Rod has done better than Honus (based on their careers u[p to age 30) but I would say that he projects to either tie Wagner or fall just short.

Mariano_Rivera

09-04-2006, 08:23 AM

Another Classic Comparison: Ty Cobb versus Honus Wagner (all stats are BP's translated stats)
__________________________________________________ __

Wagner's Career EQA= .308

Cobb's Career EQA= .325

Wagner's best EQA season= .351

Cobb's best EQA season= .356

Wagner's .300 EQA seasons= 12

Cobb's .300 EQA seasons= 14

Wagner's average EQA over 3 year peak= .339

Cobb's average EQA over 3 year peak= .347

Wagner's average EQA over 5 year peak= .335

Cobb's average EQA over 5 year peak= .347

Wagner's career HR= 601

Cobb's career HR= 569

Wagner's HR per year=30

Cobb's HR per year=25

Wagner's career high for HR= 51 in 1908 (2nd=46, 1900 3rd=38, 1912

Cobb's career high for HR= 40 in 1917 (2nd=39, 1908 3rd=27, 1909)

Wagner's 3 year peak for HR per year= 39

Cobb's 3 year peak for HR per year= 37

Wagner's 5 year peak for HR per year= 36

Cobb's 5 year peak for HR per year= 36

Notes-Wagner was a far better power hitter and a member of the estimed 600 HR club. Cobb was one of the better power hitters of his era but Wagner was the King.
--------------------------------------

Wagner's career BA= .315

Cobb's career BA= .349

Wagner's highest BA= .366

Cobb's highest BA= .394

Wagner's seasons over .350= 4

Cobb's seasons over .350= 13

Notes-I don`t even need to continue. it is so obvious that Cobb was the better average hitter. Wagner was very very good but Cobb was the Babe Ruth of singles.
-------------------------------------

Wagner's career OBP= .384

Cobb's career OBP= .418

Wagner's best season of OBP= .434

Cobb's best season of OBP= .475

Wagner's seasons over .400= 8

Cobb's seasons over .400= 14

Wagner's average OBP over his 3 year peak= .427

Cobb's average OBP over his 3 year peak= .462

Notes-Cobb is better at getting on base than Wagner. It's tough to top Cobb who is probably the second best at getting on base in history (Ted Williams is first).

Baserunning-Both are world class base stealers and Cobb has more, however I have a suspicion that Cobb was caught far more. IMO Cobb was more interested in himself than his team and he would steal whenever he got on base and therefore everyone was more prepared for him to run. Wagner on the other hand seemed to be more concerned about his team (he turned down a larger contract and his team was a winner so he had something to be concerned about in contrast to Cobb who's team was often poor).

Overall Offense-Cobb got on base much more often and had quite a few SB. However, Wagner made the most of his hits with more HR and I believe he had a higher SB %. So who was better overrall offensively? I`d say Cobb by a fairly small margin (On a scale from 1-10 Cobb is a 10 and Wagner is an 8). I value getting on base over all other talents in baseball and Wagner does a good job of making it close but not quite enough offensively.

Defensively-Wagner is the second best fielder of all time after Ozzie Smith. Cobb was also a very good centerfielder but nowhere near Wagner.

Final Veridict: The Flying Dutchman and Ty Cobb are both amazing players, that said Wagner is the better of the two. Cobb had an amazing 9 MVP caliber seasons out of 16 seasons of 500+ AB. That means 56% of all of Cobb's seasons were MVP caliber!!! Wagner tops that. Wagner had 12 MVP caliber seasons out of 14 seasons of 500 AB or more. 86% of all his season were MVP caliber!!!!! A good portion of this is because of his fanatstic offense coupled with his historic defense. Wagner was a better player than Cobb and as I have said before, Wagner is the most complete player in history and the best Offense-Defense Cobination in history.

Mariano_Rivera

09-05-2006, 06:25 PM

Here is the "Where Do You Rank Honus Wagner?" thread. It's mentioned among the threads in the "Classic, Vintage Threads: Some of our best work." thread. I thought it might be nice to post that here:

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=655262#post655262

P.S. Just for the record, I rank him as 2nd all-time tied with Ted Williams and just behind Babe Ruth.

Bill Burgess

09-05-2006, 10:33 PM

They are companion threads. That is why I listed them both in the Vintage, Classic Threads.

Skin & Bones

09-07-2006, 08:04 PM

Ted Williams versus Honus Wagner
_______________________________

Case for Wagner- The Flying Dutchman was widely regarded as the greatest player in history until Babe Ruth topped him. IMO Wagner was the most complete player in history. Wagner was the best power hitter of his era and had over 600 translated HR, he was the greatest or second greatest fielder in history (Ozzie Smith is his only rival), he was the first player to steal 2nd, 3rd and home in the same inning as well (he had 722 career SB). Wagner also hit for contact and got on base like the rest of his era. He had the greatest late-career surge in history (excepting Barroid Bonds) and is a member of the 200 WARP 3 club with 12 of his 14 seasons being MVP caliber.

I`ll finish the other side tomorrow.

" 200 WARP3 CLUB " LOL.

Man, why do you pimp BP'S metrics so much when I'm sure you have no idea how they are calculated ?

I could understand listing them a few times in an arguement, but your arguements are based solely on their stats.

Blackout

09-07-2006, 09:12 PM

i highly doubt Honus Wagner was one of the top 2 fielders of all time
----------------------------
CTaka responds:
It depends on what methodology you are using. If you are going by, say, fielding RAR2, then no, Wagner would not be one of the top 2 fielders of all time. If you go by fielding Win Shares, then Wagner's career total of 141.84 is the highest in history.

I don't know what the "best" fielding methodology is, so I figure if someone ranks pretty high on most of the different systems, then he's probably pretty good. I don't know if Honus is one of the two best in history, but he's certainly pretty high on the list. I think he may be the greatest "all around" fielder at least as defined by being a good/great fielder at many positions.
----------------------------------------
Rickey_Henderson comes back.
The only stat I used in this argument for BP that IO don`t know how it is calculated is WARP 3 and I just briefly threw it out their.

It also depends on hiow you define the greatest fielder of all-time. The fielders of the early 1900's used different gloves and racked up error totals that would be unbelievable today so you could call Honus horrible. On the other hand he was so much better than his peers and could play at just about any position (I`m not sure if he could play catcher). By this thought I believe Honus is the second greatest in history after Ozzie Smith.
--------------------------------
Blackout805 answers:
I've heard that Honus wasn't even the best fielding shortstop of his own time

I find it hard to believe he could be #1 ever
----------------------------------------------
Bill Burgess chimes in.
Honus was considered very close to Bobby Wallace in defense.

The only defensive SSs that I consider in Honus' league were:

Ozzie Smith, Herman Long, Bobby Wallace, Glenn Wright, and perhaps Omar Vizquel. And Honus was right there with them, perhaps a step behind. And none of those could carry his bat offensively.

But Honus also starred defensively at 3B, 1B, and OF.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rickey_Henderson
That last thing is my point. Anyway sorry for hijacking the thread a bit.
----------------------------------------
CTaka continues
It's true that it depends on how you define "greatest fielder", but I don't think most serious fans would measure it just by errors without taking era into consideration. By the same token, you could say that Honus never hit more than 10 homers, so he had no power. Within the context of his era, he was both a tremendous fielder and tremendous power hitter.

If you define "greatest fielder" as to their level of dominance at one position, then you also need to factor in the overall value of defense at that position (i.e. a great defensive left fielder doesn't have the same value as a great defensive shortstop). By the "one position" definition, I wouldn't consider Honus among the top two fielders in history. But if you define "greatest fielder" as defensive prowess at multiple positions, then Honus has a very strong argument as the greatest fielder of all time. By numerous methodologies, Honus rates as an all-time great defensive shortstop (just how high depends on the system used). As an OF, Honus played 35 games in left, 66 in center, and 272 in RF to take advantage of his superior throwing arm. His career fielding percentage as an OF is 13 points above league average. His career fielding percentage in 248 games at 1B is right around league average. His career fielding percentage in 209 games at 3B is 15 points above league average. As a 2B, granted in only 57 games, his career fielding percentage is 8 points above league average.

Could others have displayed such consistently excellent defense at so many positions? It's certainly possible. I suspect that if Willie Mays had been given the opportunity to play significant games at multiple positions, he may have been similarly excellent at most all of them. But that is just a guess, because Mays didn't get the opportunities to do so. With Wagner, it isn't a guess, he actually did it. So depending on how you define "greatest fielder" and the methodology you prefer for measuring defensive greatness, you could indeed make a good argument that Wagner was the greatest fielder of all time - or top two as mentioned in this thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
538280 joins the conversation.
I think there are quite a few more players who could handle just about every position than you seem to think. Many major league shortstops are tremendous athletes who could really play anywhere, but are just put at SS because that is where they can help the team most. I've always though the main reason Honus did not play SS at the beginning of his career was because he was a very large man for that time, and it took some time for people to notice that he could indeed play SS better than anyone else.

Bert Campaneris would be an example of a guy who, like Honus, could probably have played anywhere.
---------------------------------------------
CTaka
I agree that others could have handled other positions. Both Campaneris and Cesar Tovar did play all 9 positions in their career. And I'm sure others could have done so, but didn't have the opportunity. My point is not how many could have, but how many actually did and managed to perform at a good to great level? In Campaneris' case, he played 76 games at 3B with a career fielding percentage 50 points BELOW league average! He played 69 games in the OF with a career fielding percentage 44 points BELOW league average. And don't forget his 36 games at 2B with a fielding percentage 16 points below league average.

In Tovar's case, he was at league average in 945 games in the OF. But he was 21 points BELOW league average in 227 games at 3B, 8 points below league average in 215 games at 2B, and 19 points below league average at SS (77 games).

Playing multiple positions poorly doesn't make them candidates for the title of greatest fielder ever. And it certainly doesn't put them in Wagner's class. Playing multiple positions was a characteristic that was more common in baseball's early days than in later years with an increased emphasis on specialization. My point is that while others may well have been very capable of playing multiple positions with excellent results, Wagner actually did play multiple positions extremely well. Others played multiple positions, such as Campaneris and Tovar, but I can't think of any off the top of my head that did so with the same results that Wagner obtained.

Honus Wagner Rules

09-09-2006, 03:01 PM

Honus Wagner, 1907
Pictorial History of American Sports,
by John Durant/Otto Bettmann, 1952, pp. 131.
Awesome photo, Bill!! :clapping I'd never seen it before.

Mariano_Rivera

09-09-2006, 04:00 PM

That is a very nice picture.

Bill Burgess

09-09-2006, 10:18 PM

SS comparison stats: As of 1994 for Ripken.

Player----FA-L.%------Po/G div.L.%-------A/G div.L.%-------DP/G div. L.%
O.Smith---+.014--------+22%----------------+34%------------+19%
Wagner----+.023--------+14%-----------------+1%------------+17%
Jennings--+.005--------+29%----------------+11%------------+31%
Aparico---+.008--------+33%----------------+14%------------+22%
Ripken----+.013--------+17%----------------+22%------------+28%
Maranville+.011--------+21%----------------+15%------------+17%
Bancroft--+.003--------+26%----------------+18%------------+15%
Boudreau--+.015---------+6%-----------------+5%------------+23%
Yount-----+.000--------+26%----------------+18%------------+25%
Banks-----+.007--------+20%----------------+14%------------+12%
Cronin----+.002---------+1%-----------------+8%-------------+8%
Vaughan----+002---------+1%-----------------+8%-------------+3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These stats are taken from the book:
Baseball's All-Time Dream Team, by John P. McCarthy, Jr., 1994, pp. 50.

Wish he had included Herman Long, Bobby Wallace, Glenn Wright, Marty Marion, George Mcbride, & Omar Vizquel. Anyone want to take a stab at including them. Hard stat work anybody?

538280

09-10-2006, 10:29 AM

SS comparison stats: As of 1994 for Ripken.

Player----FA-L.%------Po/G div.L.%-------A/G div.L.%-------DP/G div. L.%
O.Smith----+.014--------+22%---------------+34%------------+19%
Wagner----+.023--------+14%-----------------+1%------------+17%
Jennings---+.005--------+29%----------------+11%------------+31%
Aparico----+.008--------+33%----------------+14%------------+22%
Ripken-----+.013--------+17%----------------+22%------------+28%
Maranville--+.011--------+21%----------------+15%------------+17%
Bancroft---+.003--------+26%----------------+18%------------+15%
Boudreau--+.015----------+6%------------------+5%-----------+23%
Yount-----+.000---------+26%-----------------+18%-----------+25%
Banks-----+.007---------+20%-----------------+14%-----------+12%
Cronin-----+.002----------+1%------------------+8%------------+8%
Vaughan---+002-----------+1%------------------+8%------------+3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These stats are taken from the book:
Baseball's All-Time Dream Team, by John P. McCarthy, Jr., 1994, pp. 50.

Wish he had included Herman Long, Bobby Wallace, Glenn Wright, Marty Marion, George Mcbride, & Omar Vizquel. Anyone want to take a stab at including them. Hard stat work anybody?

Good chart, Bill. The problem is that these statistics are not very good ways to evaluate fielders. The context of the staff tendencies and such needs to be taken into account. I'd rather see a chart of statistics like DWS and FRAA, which adjust for such things.

Mariano_Rivera

09-10-2006, 10:44 AM

According to PCA Wagner has 60.5 career defensive wins. He also had 704 FRAR.

538280

09-10-2006, 10:56 AM

In fact, what the hell, I'll make one. DWS per 1000 innings, career DWS, career DWS multiplied by DWS/1000 (gives a good idea of total defensive greatness, shown as DWSR defensive Win Shares rating) and FRAA. It includes those SSs in McCarthy's chart, those Bill wished were included, and some personal additions. WS data for Vizquel is through 2001, FRAA is as of right now:

......................DWS/1000......CDWS....FRAA
Ozzie Smith..........6.42...........139.8.....288
Honus Wagner....6.89..........116.9....197
Hughie Jennings.....7.68............60.2.....103
Luis Aparicio..........5.47...........122.8.....93
Cal Ripken.............5.69...........115.2.....208
Rabbit Maranville....6.42............123.2....149
Dave Bancroft........6.20...........102.9.....107
Lou Boudreau.........6.49.............87.2.....132
Robin Yount...........5.09............66.3.......5 (only at SS, same with Banks)
Ernie Banks............4.51............44.8.......53
Joe Cronin.............5.90.............94.6.......58
Arky Vaughan.........5.55............72.4.......70
Herman Long..........6.40............101.9.....67
Bobby Wallace........5.46.............87.5.....154
Glenn Wright..........5.80.............52.0......-13
Marty Marion..........7.32.............97.5......132
George McBride.......6.11.............87.8......128
Omar Vizquel..........5.10.............76.6.......89
Dave Concepcion....6.37.............116.9......105
Joe Tinker.............7.28..............112.2......17 6
Bill Dahlen..............6.82.............128.0......18 2

These statistics generally go with the natural perception of the players. The only exceptions would be Aparicio and Vizquel, who are still shown to be good, just not as good as the perception, and Glenn Wright, who FRAA has as a below average shortstop.

Bill Burgess

09-10-2006, 11:10 AM

I agree that fielding stats are dependent on the pitching staffs. Mediocre pitching puts more runners on base, and the more traffic you have, the more opportunities for POs, Assists, & DPs.

But I am also sceptical as to whether or not a staff can be measured precisely as to fly ball staffs, ground ball staffs, etc. Just how precisely can we measure these things with respect to infield fielding stats? I tend to be somewhat cynical. If someone can enlighten me, that would be good.

And if these things CAN be measured with accurate precision, would anyone with a perchant for hard stat work be up to creating such a chart showing the POs, A, DP, E per game, indexed to L% for Wagner, Herman Long, Hughie Jennings, Bobby Wallace, Rabbit Maranville, George McBride, Glenn Wright, Marty Marion, Omar Vizquel. Maybe we can get some good comparison stats at long last, after all these decades.
Bill

538280

09-10-2006, 11:17 AM

I agree that fielding stats are dependent on the pitching staffs. Mediocre pitching puts more runners on base, and the more traffic you have, the more opportunities for POs, Assists, & DPs.

But I am also sceptical as to whether or not a staff can be measured precisely as to fly ball staffs, ground ball staffs, etc. Just how precisely can we measure these things with respect to infield fielding stats? I tend to be somewhat cynical. If someone can enlighten me, that would be good.

Well, those things have been counted since 1987 (ground balls and fly balls given up). Prior to then, you can estimate very accurately by using the team assist total. The large majority of the time, an assist is the result of a groundball. If you want to be even more accurate, you can take out assists by OFers and catchers. This is a proven fact BTW. It has been tested in years when we have actual groud ball data, the correlation between assists and ground balls is extremely high.

Bill Burgess

09-10-2006, 11:20 AM

Wow!!! I wish for a dream come true, and voila!! I take back all the snide things I've implied about you, Christopher!!

You are a workhorse for heavy stat chops!! But now let's slow this puppy down and study this. What's the interpretation for us with respect to how Wagner stacked up with the other slick gloves of history.

What does this all mean and what's the lessons for us all? Thanks a million! Maybe I have to rivise my cynicism towards defensive stats nowadays.

What say you, Chris, RuthMayBond, SABR Matt? Let's all weigh in and suck the marrow out of Chris' excellent work here.

Bill

SABR Matt

09-10-2006, 12:31 PM

I'll start by including my answer to the DWS chart...defensive GI for shortstops:

The top 30 greatest SSs of all time by PCA/GI
First Last HOF Rk PsPRG Career Rate Mastery TOTAL Ps
Ozzie Smith Y 1 2455 73.49 65.08 52.47 191.04 SS
Honus Wagner Y 2 1913 60.52 47.93 48.63 157.08 SS
Mark Belanger N 3 1708 53.37 58.49 45.16 157.03 SS
Joe Tinker Y 4 1725 52.26 56.53 42.16 150.95 SS
Herman Long N 5 1805 51.28 53.31 37.55 142.14 SS
George Davis Y 6 1372 47.98 42.06 49.87 139.91 SS
Robin Yount Y 7 1461 50.80 39.39 49.48 139.67 SS
Luis Aparicio Y 8 2508 56.81 47.42 34.88 139.10 SS
Rabbit Maranville Y 9 2157 55.95 43.69 38.79 138.42 SS
Bill Dahlen Y 10 2158 56.19 47.83 33.49 137.51 SS
Tony Fernandez N 11 1513 45.62 46.31 44.74 136.68 SS
Marty Marion N 12 1492 42.76 52.15 41.18 136.10 SS
John Ward Y 13 833 40.01 41.31 52.97 134.29 SS
Dave Concepcion N 14 2054 50.74 46.11 36.73 133.59 SS
Phil Rizzuto Y 15 1535 42.94 51.54 38.77 133.24 SS
Scott Fletcher N 16 734 36.52 47.43 48.91 132.86 SS
Neifi Perez N 17 909 34.44 52.24 46.08 132.76 SS
Pee Wee Reese Y 18 1980 47.67 46.16 38.71 132.55 SS
Dave Bancroft Y 19 1861 45.08 47.36 38.40 130.84 SS
Lou Boudreau Y 20 1507 41.38 49.35 38.02 128.74 SS
Luke Appling Y 21 2188 50.11 44.32 33.55 127.98 SS
Joe Cronin Y 22 1809 44.70 45.69 36.56 126.95 SS
Jack Glasscock N 23 1632 41.33 46.08 38.68 126.09 SS
Cal Ripken Jr. A 24 2280 52.73 36.82 35.41 124.96 SS
Everett Scott N 25 1594 40.88 48.38 34.61 123.87 SS
Roy McMillan N 26 1925 44.55 45.66 33.43 123.63 SS
Bobby Wallace Y 27 1819 45.92 40.03 37.63 123.58 SS
Jay Bell N 28 1450 39.78 41.98 39.37 121.13 SS
Garry Templeton N 29 1900 41.94 43.26 33.83 119.03 SS
Rey Sanchez N 30 875 32.47 45.41 40.97 118.85 SS

I'll take questions on any of those guys or anyone you think is missing...

For the pruposes of this thread...notice where Wagner sits...second only to Smith in defensive greatness...a lot of that is his longevity score...but nonetheless...a great great gloveman.

538280

09-10-2006, 01:49 PM

Wow!!! I wish for a dream come true, and voila!! I take back all the snide things I've implied about you, Christopher!!

Thank you. :)

You are a workhorse for heavy stat chops!! But now let's slow this puppy down and study this. What's the interpretation for us with respect to how Wagner stacked up with the other slick gloves of history.

Well, it appears Wagner is up there among the best according to every statistic, so it is clear to me at least that he should be regarded as one of the absolute best defensive SSs of all time, probably behind only Ozzie Smith, who appears to be a CLEAR #1.

What does this all mean and what's the lessons for us all? Thanks a million! Maybe I have to rivise my cynicism towards defensive stats nowadays.

You should. Defensive stats are not perfect, but they don't really miss all that much. They look at all the plays a player has made, and usually put it through staff adjustments. It look at everything a player does, not just remembering a few isolated plays like what often happens with eyewitnesses. I"m not saying you should trust them exclusively, eyewitnesses can be good, but they are meaningful. I've seen you post that standard list of criticisms before, but the fact is is that all those things are adjusted for in modern defensive metrics.

CTaka

09-10-2006, 05:13 PM

538280

09-10-2006, 07:15 PM

Just wanted to point out that Wagner's Win Shares numbers are based on what he did at shortstop only. If you include his entire career, Wagner totalled 141.84 CDWS, the highest in history. As the earlier posts pointed out, a big part of the argument as to whether or not Honus is the greatest or second greatest fielder of all time is based on his ability to field multiple positions at a high level.

Yes, this is true. Include what he does at other positions and Honus moves barely ahead of Ozzie in career fielding Win Shares, 141.84 to 139.84. Based on that (and along with his better SS rate), according to DWS he probably is a better defensive player than Ozzie, though his total is actually not the most career DWS. That would go to Bill Dahlen, with 143.35.

However, Wagner's lead is not extremely significant. Win Shares are not truly precise enough that 2 WS over a career is really an extremely significant difference. And considering DWS is the only measure that has Honus up there with Ozzie (never mind the LQ issue as well), I'm still inclined to go with the Wizard as the best defensive player of all time. Honus certainly was about as good a fielder as history produced though.

CTaka

09-10-2006, 09:25 PM

Yes, this is true. Include what he does at other positions and Honus moves barely ahead of Ozzie in career fielding Win Shares, 141.84 to 139.84. Based on that (and along with his better SS rate), according to DWS he probably is a better offensive player than Ozzie, though his total is actually not the most career DWS. That would go to Bill Dahlen, with 143.35.

However, Wagner's lead is not extremely significant. Win Shares are not truly precise enough that 2 WS over a career is really an extremely significant difference. And considering DWS is the only measure that has Honus up there with Ozzie (never mind the LQ issue as well), I'm still inclined to go with the Wizard as the best defensive player of all time. Honus certainly was about as good a fielder as history produced though.

Good point on Dahlen having the highest career DWS. I also noticed that when you include Rabbit Maranville's time at 2B, he has 142.7 DWS, or 1 more than Wagner.

I'd agree with you that I think Ozzie may be the greatest defensive player of all time. The point made in this thread was that Wagner may be one of the top two greatest fielders of all time. I think there is sufficient evidence that Wagner just may be one of the two best ever. Maranville was great, as was Mazeroski and McPhee at 2B. But Honus is certainly right there in the middle of that discussion. Given that Wagner is usually remembered today for his offensive prowess, it is amazing that he is also that high on the defensive spectrum as well.

Bill Burgess

09-10-2006, 10:51 PM

Brian McKenna

09-11-2006, 05:29 AM

Does DWS make any adjustment for playing on artificial turf?

SABR Matt

09-11-2006, 05:51 AM

I don't think there is really an argument for Wagner being a better fielder than Smith. His defensive GI includes all positions, though I listed his Equivalent Games only at SS (The PsPRG column). One of the reasons Wagner does so well by defensive win shares sompared to PCA is that James makes no adjustment for the standard deviation of win-score rates. He gave the position an intrinsic weight figuring as long as he held the mean DWS score fixed, the data would not be era biased, but that's not what actually happens. DWS have biases...in eras where ground balls were more common DWS scores ranged more widely...more terrible years and more great ones because when fielders have more chances (routine or otherwise) to impact defense, they make more of an impact relative to average. As a result the deadball SSs have an advantage on a list like that. Wagner played in the ultimate groundball era and reeped the benefits.

PCA and the GI scores listed above aren't perfect, but I think they're a step more reliable than a straight read of WS defensive rates and career totals because there are no era biases with the exception of pitchers' fielding...a problem which I plan on dealing with by including fielding in the evaluation of pitching skill rather than independently.

Bill Burgess

09-11-2006, 10:38 AM

There is another factor which may or may not complicate defensive stats. I assume that relative stats might correct for this, but what about the differences in glove quality.

The gloves were of the 'pancake' variety up until around 1930, when the 'Doaks' model improved greatly. It included much better webbing between the thumb and forefinger.

And the 1953 gloves and the 1960 gloves were drastically different. They introduced the hinge action to close the glove automatically. SO much better. I don't think there was much difference between my own personal glove in 1960 and the gloves from 30 yrs. later. But 1953-60 saw the incredible upgrade.

Do relative stats take all of that into consideration? Just a naive question from a stat numbskull.

Honus Wagner Rules

09-11-2006, 02:56 PM

Honus Wagner: Pirates' SS,
-------------------1908-09------------------------------------------1912-13

Left:
Right: The Pirates Reader, by Richard Peterson, 2003, pp. 84.
Is it me or does Honus look "fatter" in the picture on the left, when he was younger?

SABR Matt

09-11-2006, 03:57 PM

Mariano_Rivera

09-11-2006, 04:01 PM

He's wearing a baggier shirt and it's tucked in a little looser around the midsection...making him look fatter than he is. Wagner was always a medium build player with a GREAT athleticism and muscle mass for his day. A freakishly good athelete which explains why he's the only large shortstop to ever truly master fielding there. Ripken and A-Rod and Nomar have all had good seasons, but were not nearly as consistent as Honus.
*sarcasm* What??!!!! You mean to say my brother is wrong and Jeter isn`t the greatest fielder in history???!!! *end sarcasm*

A-Rod was fairly consisent but definitely not at the caliber of Honus Wagner in the defense department.

Mariano_Rivera

09-11-2006, 04:02 PM

Is it me or does Honus look "fatter" in the picture on the left, when he was younger?
At the first glancer I though it was Babe Ruth's pic being compared to Honus's

538280

09-11-2006, 04:27 PM

Chris,

Does Wagner's good showing in defensive stats impress you more than previously? Does his D. tempt you to improve his all time ranking on your list.

You are forever haranguing me to change my rankings. Any chance of Hans moving up?

Honus is at #4 for me now. I don't think there's much of a chance of him moving ahead of Mays, Ruth, or Bonds.

SABR Matt

09-11-2006, 04:31 PM

With all of the adjustments I've made to the GI method and with the normalization of PCA, Wagner moved up while many others from the deadball era moved way down...that speaks volumes about Wagner's uniqueness. I have him 6th and I'm very comfortable with him there numerically. If I were to subjectively tweak my rankings, Bonds would drop below Wagner and I'd have him 5th (and Bonds about 7th).

brett

09-11-2006, 04:53 PM

I would love to put Ted Williams or Lou Gehrig or Mays ahead of Wagner. They are three of my all time favorites, however I can't rate them higher.

Wagner, Williams, Gehrig and Mays all rate almost identical in adjusted offensive value-all about +150 games (as do Musial, Mantle, Aaron and Speaker). They clearly make up the second tier of offensive players behind only Bonds, Ruth and Cobb who all rank in the 200-225 range far ahead of these next 8.

Of the 8 second tier of offense: Wagner, Williams, Gehrig, Mays, Musial, Mantle, Aaron and Speaker, Gehrig would drop pretty significantly due to position, and Musial would also drop a bit, and Williams as well. Mantle and Aaron might break even. Speaker and Mays would get a boost, but certainly not more than 40 games total for positional and defensive value. That would mean that there is no way they could overcome the margin to be one of the top 3.

Williams could get maybe enough boost to top the 200 level based on credit for military duty, although he would lose some for defense.

Wagner is the only one who could overcome the defecit based on positional enhancement. I could conceive that he could gain around +70 for positional and defensive value-maybe a little more.

We can argue all day about Bonds, Ruth and Cobb on defense, but the fact is that none is moving up or down that much simply because the variation at their postions is so minimal.

That means that Wagner is somewhere between 1-4, and almost certainly no lower than 4. He separates himself from the other 7 second tier pretty clearly in my book, even if the defensive value is overrated (he still clearly is above the others).

JRB

09-14-2006, 01:27 AM

Brett: You mention a first and second tier of great hitters however you omit to mention Hornsby. Hornsby clearly belongs in any objective listing of the first or second tier of great hitters, and most likely should be considered in the first tier, not the second. I agree with Ted Williams comment that among hitters Hornsby was the greatest combination of average and power the game has ever known. Wagner (whom I greatly admire) led the league in batting average 8 times, while Hornsby led the league in batting average 7 times. Wagner lead the league in slugging percentage 6 times, while Hornsby led the league in slugging percentage 9 times. Hornsby dominated the National League offensively in his era as much, if not more, than Wagner did in his era. Hornsby not only has the highest lifetime average in National League history, no one else is even close. Among post 20th centurey hitters, Cobb leds the AL hitters by 10 points, while among NL hitters Hornsby has a 17 point lead over the second place lifetime hitter, Bill Terry (I'm not counting the guys that played in the 1800's when a foul ball didn't even count as a strike against you-however he would even lead them by 12 points or more). Not only did he have the greatest lifetime average in the league, Hornsby also had the greatest single season average of the 20th century, .424. He also had the greatest single season slugging percentage in the National League in the 20th century, .756. which he came close to duplicating on another occasion when he had a .722. In addition, Hornsby had the greatest single season total base total in the National League in the 20th Century, 450. He also won two triple crowns. Omitting him from your tier list is quite an omission. JRB

Mariano_Rivera

09-16-2006, 08:07 AM

Nice pics.

Myankee4life

09-24-2006, 12:17 PM

Rickey. that Honus Wagner statue looks like its standing in front of Yankee Stadium....

Mariano_Rivera

09-25-2006, 03:57 PM

Rickey. that Honus Wagner statue looks like its standing in front of Yankee Stadium....
Yeah I just realized thast, it does. Maybe it's another Honus...

Blackout

10-03-2006, 09:32 PM

does anyone think Honus Wagner in his prime was as good as Derek Jeter has been in 2006?
-------------------------------------------
CTaka
As good as Jeter was this year? No. Better? Yes.

I'm not knocking Jeter as I think he put together a terrific season. Of particular note is that his OBP was 23% higher than league average. And getting on base ahead of the other Yankee bangers is a big part of his game. But if you take Wagner's big year, 1908, his OBP was 35% higher than league average.

Jeter's slugging percentage this season was 11% higher than league average. Wagner was 70% higher. Yes, that is 7-0. Sure, there is a LQ adjustment that needs to be made, but it doesn't make up that difference.

Jeter finished 7th in the AL in stolen bases with 34. Wagner led the league with 53. But Jeter has always been a tremendous percentage base stealer, and this season is no different with an 87% success rate. While we don't have caught stealing stats for Wagner, it is safe to say it would likely be much lower. How much lower? I don't know, because the league average was much lower then. I would probably call them a tie on the bases.

Other threads have discussed Wagner's defense at great lengths. While most may put Ozzie ahead of Honus with the glove, the consensus is that Wagner is right there at that next level just a somersault behind the Wizard of Oz. For some reason, Jeter's name never comes up in those discussions. I think Wagner has the defensive edge over Jeter...big time.

Again, I am not knocking Jeter. It is no shame to finish behind Honus, since every other SS in history does. But the fact that Jeter can be compared to him indicates just what a great season he did have this year.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Honus Wagner Rules is incredulous.
You're joking, right? Let's start with Wagner's 1908 season, one of the greatest seasons of the 20th century. Jeter had a 138 OPS+ in 2006. Wagner surpassed that 13 times. Jeter's career high is 161 (1999). Wagner surpassed that eight times. And I haven't even mentioned the difference in defense...

I'm not sure why there is so much buzz but Jeter's 2006 season as if it was some all-time great season for a shortstop. It's not even his best season. His 1999 season was far better. In 1999, Jeter had a 161 OPS+, in 2006 it was 138. Normar and Tejeda have had similar seasons. So why the hype on Jeter?
---------------------------------------------------
MWiggins
EVEN if you use a league quality argument to make Jeter's '06 season equal to Honus's prime - Jeter's an average defender at best, whereas Honus would be a Gold Glover without question. He's one of the best defensive players of all-time, and some consider him the best of all time. If you take his prime seasons and put them in 2006 context, he's a Gold Glove SS hitting probably .360 or so, with 35 HR's, and 50-60 SB's, and running away with the MVP award.
-------------------------------------------
538280
I would say this probably has been Jeter's best season. By just about every metric his defense has actually been pretty good this season, whereas in 1999 it was awful. His SBs have also improved a lot (what does he have, like 30 SBs and 3 CS?) in 1999 he had 19 and 8. It's pretty close but I think I'd go with 2006 as Jeter's best year, 1999 he probably did deserve the MVP though.
------------------------------------------------------------
Honus Wagner Rules
I just have a hard time putting Jeter's 2006 season over his 1999 season given the large gap in slugging percentage plus a 23 point difference in OPS+.
---------------------------------------
CTaka
Since there has been no response, I'm guessing that he must have been joking around.

Mariano_Rivera

10-06-2006, 04:40 PM

The only active player that challenge Honus is A-Rod. Jeter isn`t even close.

CTaka

10-07-2006, 06:03 PM

The only active player that challenge Honus is A-Rod. Jeter isn`t even close.

I don't see ARod as being close enough yet to challenge Honus. And it will become a mute point if he doesn't go back to SS.

Somehow, I have a hard time imagining Honus batting EIGHTH in a playoff game while he was still in the heart of his prime.

Mariano_Rivera

10-08-2006, 07:33 AM

I don't see ARod as being close enough yet to challenge Honus. And it will become a mute point if he doesn't go back to SS.

Somehow, I have a hard time imagining Honus batting EIGHTH in a playoff game while he was still in the heart of his prime.
I meant in the future he could but obviously not yet. Did he ever bat in a lineup where the person batting 9th was 3rd in the batting race?

CTaka

10-08-2006, 02:52 PM

I meant in the future he could but obviously not yet. Did he ever bat in a lineup where the person batting 9th was 3rd in the batting race?

Nope. The person batting 9th was a pitcher. Having a DH in the lineup gives a manager different options, such as putting another leadoff type hitter at the bottom of the lineup. But if the Cardinals make the World Series and play under DH rules in the AL park, my guess is that you will NOT see Pujols batting eighth. It is a simple mathematical fact that the person batting third will get more plate appearances in a game than someone batting eighth. If you have an all-time great hitter, most people would want him to come to the plate as many times as possible instead of as few as possible. Maybe Torre never took the time to do the math on plate appearances, but I don't think so.

I don't put as much emphasis on post season performance as some others do in making determinations about where to rank all-time players. I look at them more as "tiebreakers". As you point out, thus far ARod is not yet close enough to Honus to even need to consider "tiebreakers", but if he can significantly improve his play in the future and make it a close contest, that
.071 batting average and a blatant move by his manager to limit the number of times ARod would come to the plate in a must-win game will probably be mentioned again.

538280

10-08-2006, 05:54 PM

I don't put as much emphasis on post season performance as some others do in making determinations about where to rank all-time players. I look at them more as "tiebreakers". As you point out, thus far ARod is not yet close enough to Honus to even need to consider "tiebreakers", but if he can significantly improve his play in the future and make it a close contest, that
.071 batting average and a blatant move by his manager to limit the number of times ARod would come to the plate in a must-win game will probably be mentioned again.

Why would postseason performance be a negative "tiebreaker" for A-Rod agianst Honus? Yeah, the last two playoffs with the Yankees haven't been good, but A-Rod was a postseason monster with the Mariners, and his 2004 postseason was no slouch either. Wagner had a notably bad postseason in 1903 as his heavily favored Pirates lost to the upstart AL Americans in the first WS. In the 1909 WS the Pirates won, but Wagner didn't really have a particularly great series. In his posteason career he hit .275/.393/.373, which is good given the time and place but you'd expect more from your huge star.

CTaka

10-09-2006, 10:36 PM

Why would postseason performance be a negative "tiebreaker" for A-Rod agianst Honus? Yeah, the last two playoffs with the Yankees haven't been good, but A-Rod was a postseason monster with the Mariners, and his 2004 postseason was no slouch either. Wagner had a notably bad postseason in 1903 as his heavily favored Pirates lost to the upstart AL Americans in the first WS. In the 1909 WS the Pirates won, but Wagner didn't really have a particularly great series. In his posteason career he hit .275/.393/.373, which is good given the time and place but you'd expect more from your huge star.

We don't know what ARod's overall post season performance will be yet because presumably he will likely have further opportunities to play in the future. Wagner had a poor series in 1903 but an excellent series in 1909. His .467 OBP was 137 points above the league average that year and his .500 slugging percentage was 164 points above league average. Coupled with 6 stolen bases in 7 games, I'd say that is a pretty spectacular series. If that level of performance, given the era he played in, is not a "particularly great series", then we just have different standards as to what a great series is.

But the sample size isn't big enough for me to make true comparisons. My point is that even in the midst of Wagner's poor performance in '03, I have never come across any information that Clarke ever decided to bat Wagner eighth in the lineup. If you have information to the contrary, please post it and I will stand corrected. Batting eighth is a blatant statement that the manager does not want you to get as many plate appearances as the person batting third or fourth. In your words, I would inded expect more from a huge star.

Myankee4life

11-07-2006, 11:06 AM

What is the best book out on Honus Wagner?

JRB

11-07-2006, 11:35 AM

What is the best book out on Honus Wagner?

Honus Wagner, A Biography by Dennis DeValeria & Jeanne Burke DeValeria, written in 1995. Extremely rich in detail. Hope this helps.

Mariano_Rivera

11-09-2006, 04:20 AM

BTW I have Honus as the greatest player of all-time now and the second most valuable.

Bill Burgess

11-09-2006, 11:59 AM

Honus Wagner, A Biography by Dennis DeValeria & Jeanne Burke DeValeria, written in 1995. Extremely rich in detail. Hope this helps.
All 3 of the bios on Wagner had access to the family scrapbooks, and the cooperation of the family custodian of their estate records.

So all 3 are very good, IMHO.

Honus Wagner Rules

12-19-2006, 10:08 AM

In 1935, Honus picked an All-Time All-Star Team. He had done one in the 1920's and later another in 1949.

1B - Bill Terry
2B - Larry Lajoie
3B - Pie Traynor/Jimmy Collins
SS - ?
C - Johnny Kling
LF - Fred Clarke
CF - Clarence 'Ginger' Beaumont
RF - Bill Lange
P - Christy Mathewson/Cy Young
--------------------This is kind of a weak excuse or Honus was going senile. ;)

Honus Wagner Rules

12-19-2006, 10:16 AM

Bench 5

12-27-2006, 12:48 PM

While researching Armando Marsans I ran across a story that showed that old Hans had a role in causing Marsans to jump to the Federal League. Growing up I always heard the story about how Wagner shoved the ball into Ty Cobb's mouth during the World Series when Cobb attempted to steal second. Whether that story is true or not is one thing, but the story below shows that Hans wasn't above using his brawn to take advantage of a 160 pound guy like Marsans.

August 1914 Baseball Magazine - The War of the Leagues
The Federal Fiasco—In Re Marsans—Contract Breaking—
General Uncertainty—Its Disastrous Effects on Baseball
By WILLIAM A. PHELON
"On May 31. during a tight game with Pittsburgh, the Cuban stole second. Seeing that the umpire was turning away, crafty old (Honus) Wagner suddenly jiu-jitsud Marsans off the base, slammed the ball on him, claimed the putout and got it. Marsans went wild, and trailed the umpire across the infield, addressing him in fuming Spanish, till the official ejected him. After the game, Manager Herzog gave him a call-down for so forgetting himself as to deprive the club of his services when imperatively needed. The altercation became red hot, and Marsans, deeming himself unjustly scolded, proceeded to re-open communication with the very Feds he had rebuffed not long before. "

Bill Burgess

01-21-2007, 05:04 PM

---------------------

Bill Burgess

01-21-2007, 05:21 PM

3 times Wagner stole second, third, and home in one inning
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only way to get a ball past Honus is to hit it eight feet over his head." - John McGraw
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Crawford -

"In my opinion, the greatest all-around player who ever lived was Honus Wagner.

Cobb could only play the outfield, and even there his arm wasn't anything special. Honus Wagner could play any position. He could do everything. In fact, when I first played against him he was an outfielder, and then he became a third baseman, and later the greatest shortstop of them all. Honus could play any position except pitcher and be easily the best in the league at it. He was a wonderful fielder, terrific arm, very quick, all over the place grabbing sure hits and turning them into outs. And, of course, you know he led the league in batting eight times.

You'd never think it to look at him, of course. He looked so awkward, bowlegged, barrel-chested, about 200 pounds, a big man. And yet he could run like a scared rabbit. He had enormous hands, and when he scooped up the ball at shortstop he'd grab half the infield with it. But boy, Honus made those plays! He looked awkward doing it, not graceful like Larry Lajoie, but he could make every play Lajoie could make and more. Talk about speed. That bowlegged guy stole over 700 bases in the 21 years he played in the Big Leagues. A good team man, too, and the sweetest disposition in the world. The greatest ballplayer who ever lived, in my book."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016597.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reach Guide, 1905 -

"Aside from Wagner's great artistic achievements, he has additional merits that entitle him to special distinction. He has a quiet, unassuming disposition and a remarkable native modesty; is absolutely correct in his living habits; and is a model of department on and off the field. Therefore in all ways Wagner represents the greatest development of the model ball player. May his shadow never grow less!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_460277.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thediamondangle.com/archive/dec02/honus.html

Bill Burgess

01-22-2007, 11:25 PM

[B]Honus Wagner,
Source: Top, Left: The World Series: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Fall Classic, by Josh Leventhal, 2001, pp. 25.

Bill Burgess

01-28-2007, 12:32 PM

Source: Left: Pitching In a Pinch, by Christy Mathewson, as told to John Neville Wheeler, 1912, pp. 34. Republished 1994.
Source: Right: Peach: Ty Cobb in His Time and Ours, by Richard Bak, 2005, pp. 69.

Bill Burgess

01-28-2007, 01:01 PM

February 18, 1951: Reminiscing with his scrapbooks and a fine cigar.

Bill Burgess

03-10-2007, 03:11 PM

Source, Left: The Pittsburgh Pirates, by Frederick G. Lieb, 1948, pp. frontipiece.

Honus Wagner: Pirates' coach, 1932-37

brett

03-10-2007, 03:17 PM

Is Wagner batting lefty in one of those pics, or is it a left handed catcher and an inverted pic?

In post 259, Wagner is batting lefty, because the catcher is Roger Bresnahan, who caught RH. So, the pic is not inverted. But we don't really know if the batter is Wagner or not. Just because a caption claims it's him doesn't make it so. A photographer might have been trying to drive up the value of a shot. So, who really knows? I'm cynical in some things.--Bill

I'm working on this thread, trying to bring order out of confusion. Will probably be working on it the rest of the day. Some new shots of Honus here. 3rd shot in post #261, and 1st shot in post #262, I haven't seen before. Plus larger, better shots of some of our older, oldiest but goodies. Hope you're liking how hard I'm working here. Have been at it for hours. It's the sorting that takes the time. I'm bringing all the shots in the early pages here to the back, and sorting them out. Later will date them all, and put in the sources. Lots of time needed.

Mariano_Rivera

03-10-2007, 03:30 PM

Is Wagner batting lefty in one of those pics, or is it a left handed catcher and an inverted pic?

In post 259, Wagner is batting lefty, because the catcher is Roger Bresnahan, who caught RH. So, the pic is not inverted. But we don't really know if the batter is Wagner or not. Just because a caption claims it's him doesn't make it so. A photo might have been trying to drive up the value of a shot. So, who really knows. I'm cynical in some things.--Bill

I'm working on this thread, trying to bring order out of confusion. Will probably be working on it the rest of the day. Some new shots of Honus here. 3rd shot in post #261, and 1st shot in post #262, I haven't seen before. Plus larger, better shots of some of our older, oldiest but goodies. Hope you're liking how hard I'm working here. Have been at it for hours. It's the sorting that takes the time. I'm bringing all the shots in the early pages here to the back, and sorting them out. Later will date them all, and put in the sources. Lots of time needed.

Bill, you should write a book

Bill Burgess

03-10-2007, 03:35 PM

Awesome! I've been trying feverishly to find a photo when Honus was with Louisville. I can't find one. Do you know if any exist?
----------------------------------------------
1897 Louisville Colonels; 11th Place

Top Row: L-R: Joe Dolan, Abbie Johnson, 'Still' Bill Hill, Perry Werden, Bill Wilson, Dick Butler, General Stafford.

Middle Row: L-R: Bill Clark, Billy Clingman, Fred Clarke (Mgr.), Honus Wagner, Billy Magee.

Bottom Row: L-R: Roy Evans, Bert Cunningham, Chick "Fraser, Charlie Dexter.

Source: Honus Wagner: The Life of Baseball's "Flying Dutchman", by Arthur D. Hittner, 1996, pp. 130. (Hall of Fame Archives)

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/img456.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1898 Louisville Colonels:

Standing: L-R: 'Topsy' Hartzell, Bill Magee, Tommy Leach, Deacn Phillipe, Gert Cunningham, Rube Waddell, Honus Wagner, George Dicker, Charles Dexter, Harry Davis, Claud Richey, Nick Altrock, Pete Dowling.

Sitting: L-R: Malackie Kittredge, Billy Clingham, Walter Woods, Fred Clarke (Mgr.), Mike Powers, Chick Frazier, 'Dummy' Hoy.

Source: SABR's The Baseball Research Journal, 1990, #19, pp. 46.

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/img470.jpg

The Kid

05-10-2007, 05:34 PM

Honus Wagner, Pirates SS, 1910-13
http://www.honusw.com/resources/_wsb_707x529_139.jpg
1912 (Larger Version)
http://www.explorepahistory.com/images/ExplorePAHistory-a0a0t2-a_349.JPG24183

Lin_Kuei_Fighter

07-21-2007, 12:27 PM

Excellent thread guys! I enjoy reading about Honus Wagner, and as many know, I have him #1 all time. Great job!

Bill Burgess

08-05-2007, 12:59 AM

Does a (genuine) Eddie Collins bio even exist?
By the way, the first biography of Eddie Collins is now available for pre-order. Here is the link on Amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078643287X/ref=nosim/bookfindercom0e

Rick can be contacted at

rhuhn@earthlink.net

The only thing is, Eddie wrote his biography in the Sporting News. It was in 5 installments. If anyone has access to TSN, via paperofrecord, the dates are given as follows.

Here are the links: You may have to register with paper of record, which is free.

First Installment: October 11, 1950, pp. 13-14. ----http://www.paperofrecord.com/paper_view.asp?PaperId=834&RecordId=2&PageId=7746224&iZyNetId={72B6B436-1B3E-48B1-9BED-F34231EB0C42}&iOrder=2&iOrderDir=0&iCurrentBlock=1

Second Installment: October 18, 1950, pp. 13-14.----http://www.paperofrecord.com/paper_view.asp?PaperId=834&RecordId=1&PageId=7746313&iZyNetId={81E9995F-CD49-475C-B048-EA50E69FC68D}&iOrder=2&iOrderDir=0&iCurrentBlock=1

Third Installation: October 25, 1950, pp. 11-12.----http://www.paperofrecord.com/paper_view.asp?PaperId=834&RecordId=3&PageId=7746354&iZyNetId={664F0C75-33E7-4F5B-BE49-501DFD67B630}&iOrder=2&iOrderDir=0&iCurrentBlock=1

Fourth Installment: November 1, 1950, pp. 13-14.----http://www.paperofrecord.com/paper_view.asp?PaperId=834&RecordId=2&PageId=7746431&iZyNetId={03EA2D0B-D107-4E8E-8663-6C170D3C7D75}&iOrder=2&iOrderDir=0&iCurrentBlock=1

Fifth Installment: November 8, 1950, pp. 13-14.----http://www.paperofrecord.com/paper_view.asp?PaperId=834&RecordId=1&PageId=7746493&iZyNetId={8A9D24E8-870B-4E4B-ABC1-7D65A04C4528}&iOrder=2&iOrderDir=0&iCurrentBlock=1

csh19792001

10-07-2007, 01:06 PM

Sep. 6, 2007

MISSION VIEJO, Calif. -- A rare Honus Wagner baseball card has been sold for a record $2.8 million, just over six months after it was bought for a then-record $2.35 million.

Referred to as the "Mona Lisa" of baseball cards, the almost mint-condition collectible -- released in 1909 by the American Tobacco Company -- was sold by Brian Seigel of Las Vegas to an unidentified Southern California collector in February. SCP Auctions was a minority owner, but David Kohler, the company's president and CEO, said that's no longer the case.

Kohler said the new owner wishes to remain a private collector for now, but might identify himself at a later date. The sale was completed last week and announced Thursday.

The T206 baseball card features a youthful Wagner in his Pittsburgh Pirates uniform. At the time of the February sale, it was displayed at a Dodger Stadium news conference.

"This has always been the holy grail, the Mona Lisa of baseball cards," Kohler said.

Adding to its value is that only 50 to 60 Wagner cards are believed to exist, and none of the others in circulation are close to the quality of this one, which has been encased in protective sheeting for decades.

A private collector purchased a Honus Wagner card for $2.8 million. (AP)
"This is the finest by far per condition," Kohler said.

There are no immediate plans to put the card on display, Kohler said.

"There's a possibility that might happen in the future, we don't know for sure," Kohler said. "It was displayed last month at the National Sports Collectors Convention in Cleveland. Next year, it's in Chicago. I'm sure we'll have it on display again. I'm sure the new owner won't have a problem with that."

Seigel, the CEO of an asset management company, paid a record $1.265 million when he bought the card in 2000. Among the previous owners were hockey great Wayne Gretzky and Bruce McNall, former owner of the Los Angeles Kings, who paid $451,000 for it in 1991.

Wagner's card was among the first of hundreds of cards of major league players produced by the American Tobacco Co. and included in packages of cigarettes.

Unlike other players, however, Wagner quickly demanded that his card be withdrawn. Theories vary as to why, with one being that he didn't believe American Tobacco paid him enough.

A non-smoker, the Pittsburgh shortstop was arguably the second-greatest baseball player of his era, behind Ty Cobb. Wagner hit .338 during his rookie year of 1897, and batted over .300 for 17 consecutive seasons, winning eight National League batting titles.

One of the first five players inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, Wagner retired in 1917 with more hits, runs, RBIs, doubles, triples and steals than any NL player.

Kohler said over 1,200 items are currently up for auction on his company's web site including the balls Barry Bonds hit for his record-tying 755th homer and record-breaking 756th homer last month. Those are up for sale through Sept. 15.

tailpipe

10-07-2007, 03:56 PM

Anyone who follows this "Holy Grail" Honus card should read "The Card" by Michael O'Keeffe and Teri Thompson.It will make you think twice about this card and collecting in general.

BSmile

02-27-2008, 08:23 AM

OK...time for some "Hans":

1) RARE - 1895 Warren Baseball Club (H.Wagner back row - 3rd from the left)

2) 1900 portrait of Honus in a nice suit.

3) 1904 Husky Hans - Honus Wagner Sheet Music

4) 1905 Honus Wagner - National Police Gazette

5) 1936 Pitt. Pirates Spring Training - Huge Panoramic Pic - (Hans back row - end of the right side). Sorry Bill, no other names available.

Cheers! ~B

(I've got some more btw.....)

Bill Burgess

02-27-2008, 02:56 PM

Wow! Those 2 Wagner shots above, #2 & #3 are 2 of the ones I found before in the Wagner books, but these are so much better, clearer! Thank you so much, BSmile! Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful!!! I am elated.

Heaven, I'm in Heaven.

Brian McKenna

02-28-2008, 07:48 AM

OK...time for some "Hans":

1) RARE - 1895 Warren Baseball Club (H.Wagner back row - 3rd from the left)

I'm assuming that's Honus' brother in the picture as well?

Bill Burgess

02-28-2008, 08:31 AM

I'm assuming that's Honus' brother in the picture as well?
That must be his older brother, Al, bottom, second from the right. Initially, Al was considered the better player.

George Moreland was originally seeking Al when he went looking for a player, and found Honus too. I think. Could be wrong.

Brian McKenna

02-28-2008, 08:44 AM

That must be his older brother, Al, bottom, second from the right. Initially, Al was considered the better player.

George Moreland was originally seeking Al when he went looking for a player, and found Honus too. I think. Could be wrong.

I just noticed looking at that picture again the billiards-like case (in front of Al Wagner) for carrying two bats - with a ball flopping at the bottom.

Bill Burgess

02-28-2008, 01:45 PM

And that is Claude Ritchey, who was a ML 2B, who played with Honus, 1898-1906.

BSmile

02-28-2008, 03:31 PM

Some more of the great Hans:

1) Hans taking some chaw - 1948

2) Hans giving a fielding lesson (1946-47). Not sure who the young player is.

3) Hans takes a cut - Spring Training, February 26, 1933

4) Beautifully painted advertising poster featuring Honus and a child (1950's)

Cheers ~B

BSmile

03-02-2008, 03:51 PM

1) The original photo that was the basis for the famous T-206 card! The artist actually added the "Pittsburg" to his shirt.

2) Pitt.Pirates - March 22, 1912 - Hot Springs, Ark. Honus is in the 2nd row, fourth from the left.

3) Honus Wagner, Mike Donlin, manager Fred Clarke, Marty O'Toole - 1912

4) Original photo used for Honus' 1940 Play Ball baseball card.

5) That 1940 Play Ball card.

Cheers! ~B

SHOELESSJOE3

03-02-2008, 05:42 PM

Buffalo Evening News, August 1926.

Sultan_1895-1948

03-04-2008, 08:06 PM

1936 piece by Wags......

I Never Got Tired of Playing

by Honus Wagner

People always ask me how present-day baseball compares with the baseball of my time and often they don’t believe me when I say it’s better now. There were great players in the old days and men like Ty Cobb and Ed Delahanty and King Kelly would be as great now as they were then, but the general level is higher. The play is faster, the players are more businesslike and the pitching has to be stronger.

I got my start in the big leagues with Louisville in the old National League. That was a 12-club circuit and I went along to Pittsburgh when the transfer was made several years later and stayed there until I finished my career. Tommy Leach and I went to Louisville together and broke into the lineup right away but that didn’t mean we were taken into the club. We were on the team all right but we didn’t get a chance in batting practice. I tried to get in for a lick the first day and somebody looked at me and said, “Get out of there, kid, before I brain you with this bat.” That was how things were in the old days. Tommy and I shagged flies while the other fellows hit.

After a week of that the manager said, “Why ain’t you taking your licks?” and I said, “The other players.” And he said, “You go up there and take your licks or I’ll brain you with a bat.” So I went up and pushed my way in and made a suggestive motion with my bat at the first man who tried to stop me and after that we had a batting practice with the others.

Nowadays the club does everything for the new men but send out their laundry, and I think it’s a better system. When I broke in, a newcomer literally had to fight his way into a job. The old-timers ganged together and hung onto their jobs and made it tough on the kids. You’ve probably heard about Cobb fighting everybody on the Detroit club before they would accept him; that is a true story. It happened on all the clubs. The first college man I ever met in baseball was Wills at Louisville. They tried to kill him. They’d come up close and throw the ball at him with all their might and then bawl him out if he didn’t hold it. They didn’t want sissies in the game and it was years before the college men were treated as anything but freaks.

I can give you an idea of the difference between present times and the old days by telling how we used to meet in the clubhouse before a game. The manager would say: “We lost to those bums yesterday. What are we going to do today? What are you going to do, Jake? And Jake would say, “I’m going to bump that first baseman out into right field the first time I hit one. If I get on I’m going to cut that blankety blank at short from the ankle to the eyebrows when I go down.” “Fine!” says the manager. And then it’s decided that the outfielders should do most of the bumping and spiking because they aren’t covering the bases themselves and the other guys can’t go out and get them in return. About this time the pitcher speaks up. “I guess I can do a little something, too,” he says, referring to dusting the opponents off. And that was the old times. You’ve heard tales about the players sharpening their spikes with a file, and they are true.

Nowadays the club meets and discusses the other team. What to pitch to Mel Ott, how to play for Babe Herman, whether it’s good policy to give Chuck Klein a low curve on the outside. The game is much more scientific. The players make it a business and they have the advantage of all the experience gathered from 40 years of baseball.

In general I think the old-timers were crazier about the sport. Jack Dots Miller, our second baseman on the Pirates, was so nutty about the game that on rainy days he used to go under the stands and play catch. I can never remember getting tired of playing. I never went stale and I was as keen at the end of the season as in spring training.

The most vital change in the game is the pitching. They talk about the lively ball and I suppose it is better made than it used to be, but what makes the difference in hitting is the elimination of the spitball, the emery ball, the shiner. The only way you could meet that type of pitching was to choke the bat, watch every dip of the pitch and take only a short swing. If they had grabbed the bat at the end and taken the roundhouse wallop they use now, most of the batters would still be trying to get their first hit. I don’t think I’d be able to hit at all with the long swing, lively ball or not. The short swing was my style.

The best catch I ever saw was made by Jack “Red” Murray of the Giants. It was the ninth inning of a game in Pittsburgh, the Giants were one run ahead, there were two out and I was on first base. As we had come to bat, the rain had started. It was an electrical storm, with lost of thunder and lightning and the Giants were stalling to get the game called and we were trying to hurry it. The pitcher finally threw one and the batter hit it on a line toward right field. By that time it was almost impossible to see the players through the rain and dusk, but that didn’t seem to bother Murray. He started when the ball was hit, turned his back to the plate and pedaled toward the fence. Suddenly there was a flash of lightning and what the crowd say was Murray jumping about a mile in the air and spearing the ball with his bare hand! There wasn’t any doubt that he had caught it, for the whole field lighted up for that instant.

As I was saying before, the pitching has to be much better now. Trick deliveries have been ruled out, the half balk which held runners on base is barred, the quick pitch is no more. Men like Carl Hubbell and Dizzy Dean and Lon Warneke have to be magical with that ball to keep from being murdered. They have nothing but that ball and a glove and they have to put the apple past hitters who have taken a toe hold and know that there are no mechanical miracles coming from the mound.

The craziest play I ever took part in was the result of the quick pitch. There were three on and none out when I came up one day in Chicago with Three Finger Brown pitching. I stepped into the box and before I had a chance to look up, Brown had slipped a quick pitch over the outside. Johnny Kling took it and slammed it down to second, catching the runner between bases. He started for third, the man on third started hom and the fun waxed hot, with every player n the Cubs getting into it. The first result was that our men got back safely to third and second. The man on first, however, had wandered away in the excitement and Tinker banged the ball over the Chance, who had the runner trapped but muffed the ball, which rolled away a few feet. That started it all over again. The man from third dashed for home, Chance went back and got the ball and banged it home- and it ended up after a wild chase with three men out and me still standing there helplessly with the bat in my hand!
When they make jokes about Brooklyn teams these days, I never say a word. If you look into it you'll find that every team has made a monkey of itself that way.

There was no fraternizing in the old days. I never talked with an opposing player for three years after I broke in with Louisville but one day when the Giants were playing us, Gore, the left fielder, hit home runs the first two times up. I was playing left field for Louisville and when I passed him on the way in when the inning was ended, I said in a kindly spirit"
"Nice hits there, Gore."
He turned around and gave me one of the hardest looks I've ever had and growled: "Go to hell."
I stopped being friendly after that.

I've thought over and All-Time All-Star team for many years, after playing with most of the old-timers and watching the newer stars. I suppose not many people will agree with my full selection but I haven't done it lightly and I feel that the men I have selected are the best by every test which establishes the worth of a ballplayer. I never played out of the National League and therefore confine myself to that circuit. The only time I saw the American Leaguers was in spring training and in an occasional World Series, which doesn't make me an expert on the subject. My All-Time All-Star National League team is:

Christy Mathewson
Grover Cleveland Alexander
Rube Waddell

Roger Bresnahan
Johnny Kling

Bill Terry
Rogers Hornsby
Joe Tinker
Pie Traynor
Fred Clarke
Clarence Beaumont
Willie Keeler

People are generally surprised at the selection of Beaumont, but he was one of the best players who ever lived. I saw him beat out six infield hits in one game, which will give some idea of his speed.

As pinch-hitters on that team, I would pick either Moose McCormick or Sammy Strang of the New York Giants or Ham Hyatt of the Pirates. Good pinch-hitters are really a miracle. I don't know how they can hit at all, going in there cold; I know I never could do it.

I suppose I'm prejudiced in favor of the Pirates but the best thrower I ever knew was Chief Wilson, who could throw strikes to the bases from anywhere in right field. Red Murray was great, Chick Hafy was great and I hear that this DiMaggio is wonderful, but I never saw Wilson's equal. Lots of funny things happen in baseball but the most hilarious one to me was about the two rookies we once had on the Pirates. We were about nine runs behind one day and Fred Clarke decided to give them a chance to hit. The first boy was a fresh kid named Riggs and when the umpire asked him what his name was and who he was batting for, the kid yelled:
"My name is Riggs and I'm batting for myself!"
The ump was so dumbfounded that he let him get away with it, but he was boiling with wrath. His temper wasn't made any better by the fact that Riggs slammed the first pitch for a single.

Clarke then sent the next kid up. He was a modest, retiring little fellow who never spoke unless spoken to, but he was a pretty good ballplayer. When he came up the umpire stuck his chin out and bellowed: "What's your name and who are you batting for?"
And the little kid drew his head in and looked scared and said in a tiny little voice: "Boo!"
With which the ump leaped about three feet in the air and began waving his arms and shouting: "Get out of the game! Get out of the park! Get out of my sight before I murder you!"

It took ten minutes' argument by Clarke to convince the ump that the boy's name really was Boo - Everett Boo, and in that period of time we almost laughed ourselves to death.

But baseball is always baseball. The game is even better now, as I say, and I have never worried about its future. I played 21 years in the National League with Louisville and Pittsburgh and had a few yeaers of good ball still left when I quit. Barney Dreyfuss owned the club and he thought I was still as good as most shortstops but I was getting thrown out by a step or two on plays I used to make easily and I decided it was time to get out. After that I managed my own traveling semipro team for 11 years and had a lot of fun at it. Now I'm back as coach with the Pirates and the game means as much to me as it ever did. I'm 62 years old but my eyes are still so good (they've improved remarkably in the last few years) that I can trap pop flies at short and still hit the ball at the plate.

Individually, players don't vary much from year to year. The Waners would have been good ballplayers any time and Babe Ruth would have been a star with any kind of team. John McGraw would have been smart no matter what sort of ball was being played.

We used to have a signal whereby I dropped my glove a bit lower at my knee when I wanted a throw from the catcher to trap a man off second. McGraw got wise to it one day and wehn I gave that signal the runner broke for third as soon as the throw started and made it standing up. I knew what had happened but didn't say anything, but in New York, on the next trip, I gave that same signal, the runner started and the catcher threw him out at third by a mile. McGraw was on the coaching lines at first and when the inning was over he looked at me with a sour look and said:
"You're pretty damned smart for a Dutchman at that."
Which I always though was the best testimonial I ever had.

Honus Wagner Rules

03-04-2008, 11:08 PM

Excellent article, Sultan! :thumbsup:

Sultan_1895-1948

03-05-2008, 03:31 AM

Glad you liked it. I typed it out for you ;) Wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not. Anything straight from Wags is priceless imo, even though his All-Star selections could use some re-vamping.

Bill Burgess

03-05-2008, 07:03 AM

Thanks for that good, solid work, Randy. Always appreciate a good article.

Bill

Honus Wagner Rules

03-05-2008, 10:49 AM

Glad you liked it. I typed it out for you ;) Wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not. Anything straight from Wags is priceless imo, even though his All-Star selections could use some re-vamping.

Thanks again. It's also interesting that Honus said he couldn't have been good at using "long swing", that the "short swing"was his style.

George H Ruth

03-13-2008, 02:35 PM

Honus Wagner Getting off Train Caboose 1948
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U1083317INP.jpg?size=67&uid={e5c7bbbe-6bdd-4bc1-89d1-7b630c72d349}

Hans Wagner Waving to Crowd 1933
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U223203ACME.jpg?size=67&uid={b1985059-3004-40c3-8b69-e942919ae3ba}

Honus Wagner Sliding Into Home 1910
http://pro.corbis.com/images/UB5046CINP.jpg?size=67&uid={5432fa71-47ab-461a-9384-c4c231e4cddb}

Left to right: Pie Traynor and Honus Wagner: 1938
43385

Honus Wagner/Eddie Collins Playing With Bat, 1939 (I think Bill will like this one)
Baseball's Hall of Fame Dedication; Cooperstown, NY, July 12, 1939;
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U879740INP.jpg?size=67&uid={1df7ba02-6717-4b1c-9940-78ddd313b9f1}http://pro.corbis.com/images/U507778ACME.jpg?size=67&uid={c0aebfc0-1d99-48c5-8e3a-719c0493b32f}

Pittsburgh Pirates Coach Honus Wagner in Bench 1935`
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U734674INP.jpg?size=67&uid={b0f22937-eaec-401f-a6cb-67d1391a2978}

Honus Wagner Carrying Bats 1946
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U1040534INP.jpg?size=67&uid={e64d8a7c-6033-43b7-abe8-12660d79d24f}

Old-Timers Game of 1930 stand in front of Massachusetts Governor Frank G. Allen: (l to r): Jimmy Archer, Ty Cobb (holding the child of a friend), Hans Wagner, and Roger Bresnahan.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE050396.jpg?size=67&uid={1842450f-b164-4f41-8bf0-48b5b20ea049}

Portrait of Mr. and Mrs. Honus Wagner and Mrs. Sam Young
http://pro.corbis.com/images/VV10951.jpg?size=67&uid={c7d1df5f-e953-40f3-917d-6d8bf3417a4f}

George H Ruth

03-13-2008, 02:43 PM

Honus Wagner With Fans 1940
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U552950ACME.jpg?size=67&uid={aa4decbc-a180-4f6a-b55e-db4632d2e7fb}

Honus Wagner and Players Looking at Blackboard (left to right) pitcher Roe; 3rd baseman Handley; coach Honus Wagner, and pitcher Albosta.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U1047993INP.jpg?size=67&uid={86b274e1-4690-4c1a-88fb-7089f4df8d08}

Honus Wagner Playing Piano 1947
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U1057068INP.jpg?size=67&uid={2135487a-6f84-4b80-bb83-368bfe3765b6}

Coach Honus Wagner Being Greeted by Team Mascot 1934
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U689085INP.jpg?size=67&uid={187960e0-ec73-4e70-9c17-94563cb79f48}

Left to right: Manager Frankie Frisch, Honus Wagner, scout Hollis Thurston, coach John Gooch, coach Jake Flowers (in cap at right) and coach Mike Kelly 1941
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U594799ACME.jpg?size=67&uid={84ded509-6165-408e-9918-15509b378ae8}

Honus Wagner Surrounded by Women Rangers 1936
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U765331INP.jpg?size=67&uid={29341628-fdb6-440c-b744-4f01e44a8402}

Honus Wagner (center) posing with Joe Cronin (left) and New York Giants' Bill Terry 1933
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U672951INP.jpg?size=67&uid={5f75d367-a3e8-4003-85ed-f915bf148517}

Honus Wagner Putting Uniform Away 1952
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U991475ACME.jpg?size=67&uid={4bb0bab3-a2cf-4eed-9d04-c2a5a86f7953}

Pittsburgh Pirates' shortstop Hans "Honus" Wagner at bat, circa 1910.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE058177.jpg?size=67&uid={1d7328a5-a466-4941-a182-cf921d56a3ee}

Pittsburgh Pirates Coach Honus Wagner with players during Spring training 1934
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U690308INP.jpg?size=67&uid={2b80842e-5e08-4217-b11a-e002f94fee7c}

George H Ruth

03-13-2008, 02:53 PM

Pirates Coach Honus Wagner with Player Pie Traynor 1938
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U855624INP.jpg?size=67&uid={4628e0c0-0374-4793-b4c9-fd226da81458}

Honus Wagner in Hospital Bed With Nurse 1949
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U921183ACME.jpg?size=67&uid={99c4f314-9ca0-4e99-97bf-58578289c400}

Left to right in the dugout are: Bill Dickey, George Sisler, Frank Baker, Connie Mack, Bob Grove, Honus Wagner and Walter Johnson.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U1000701INP.jpg?size=67&uid={3f53a691-e367-4972-9ab5-a2178b97d24d}

Left to right, back row: "Duffy" Lewis, Ed Collins, Roger Bresnahan, Connie Mack, Umpire Klem "Red" Murray, George Sissler. Front row: Hans Wagner, Frankie Frisch, Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker 1943
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U976782INP.jpg?size=67&uid={0377ec19-7272-4652-86d7-c5142d2961d8}

L to R) are: former President of the Phillies L.C. Ruch, President John A. Heydler of the National League; Hans Wagner; former Governor of Pennsylvania John K. Tenner, once President of the National League; and George Andrews 1933
http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE058184.jpg?size=67&uid={bd777805-be11-4bfe-8af8-3b038fd49df7}

Honus Wagner at Home 1951
http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE058231.jpg?size=67&uid={97808523-ed33-4d18-97ba-7bb3b5fff077}

Left to right, front: Debs Garms, Honus Wagner, Joseph Schultz and Eddie Leip. Back row, left to right: Eddie Stewart, Lloyd Dietz, Bill Clemensen, Rip Sewell and Oadis Swigart 1941
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U594870ACME.jpg?size=67&uid={e08306f6-6da6-4e43-9082-af50249e4276}

Older Hans Wagner Hitting Ball In Game 1933
http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE058855.jpg?size=67&uid={b5b7790c-7668-4db6-a597-ef65b762506e}

Honus is shown (center), with Max Carey (l), Brooklyn manager; and George Gibson, manager of the Pirates
http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE058912.jpg?size=67&uid={a13419b9-2f06-4fac-856d-5470ca048f3c}

L to R): Ty Cobb, Fred Clark, Hans Wagner, and Babe Adams 1925
http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE050408.jpg?size=67&uid={76e4c6eb-af40-45fe-95dd-4f8ee0d9e01b}

Bill Burgess

06-17-2008, 04:39 PM

Adam,

I had to erase your posts in the effort to delete the other thread. Didn't work and I had to make another HW Poll. Could you please repost your excellent words in the new HW Poll. Sorry for my screw-up, Adam.

Honus Wagner Rules

06-17-2008, 04:59 PM

Bill Burgess

06-17-2008, 06:45 PM

What did I say in the deleted posts? :shrug:
You said that Wagner was still a top 5 player, and I forget what you said in the second post. Can I persuade you to vote in the other poll?

SHOELESSJOE3

02-28-2009, 10:37 PM

Ike writes his idol.

BSmile

02-28-2009, 10:46 PM

Opening Day With Honus
Who is that throwing out the ball?