Your Top 10 19th Century Players:

[538280]

Who do you think the best 19th century player is? I'd say King Kelly. He was a great fielder, a great hitter, and he could play any position. This poll is only about position players. Even though many of the players in the poll were also good pitchers, that doesn't count for this poll.

The question for this poll is like this: The year is 1900, and you have access to all modern stats. You are making a list of 20 greatest players. Who do you rank #1?

If you voted other in the poll, be sure to tell us who you think is the best.

[538280]

My top 10 19th century players:

1.King Kelly
2.Billy Hamilton
3.Cap Anson
4.Buck Ewing
5.John McGraw
6.Roger Connor
7.Ed Delahanty
8.Hughie Jennings
9.Bill Dahlen
10.Sam Thompson

[julusnc]

No Dan Brouthers?

[julusnc]

Ed Delahanty or Dan Brouthers

[csh19792001]

No Dan Brouthers?

Brouthers needs to be on this poll! :atthepc

[538280]

Brouthers needs to be on this poll! :atthepc

Rats, I forgot him, I knew I forgot somone. Could a mod please help and add him?

[MasonDixon]

No Bill Lange?

I'll take Ewing anyway. A lot of those guys were great, but when you get comparable production from a catcher, you take it.

[julusnc]

No Bill Lange?

I'll take Ewing anyway. A lot of those guys were great, but when you get comparable production from a catcher, you take it.

Damn are you related to Bill? :laugh

[MasonDixon]

Damn are you related to Bill? :laugh

No, but I wanted to be the first one to note the absence of Bill Lange. :laugh

[westsidegrounds]

Jim Creighton.

[csh19792001]

Jim Creighton.

The esteemed gentleman Jim. First star in baseball history.

And C. Montgomery Burns' center fielder! :laugh

[Bill Burgess]

My Slate of Candidates For the Greatest Players of the 19th Century:


1. Buck Ewing, 1880-97, NL catcher, 1880-92, , IF, OF, 3B, 2B, P, NL manager, 1890, 1895-1900
In the spring of 1892, Buck threw out the forearm muscle of his throwing forearm. And that spelled the end of his great player days.

2. Cap Anson

3. Herman Long, NL SS, 1889-1904, All time glove. Scored lots of runs in his peak, hit well 1894-97.

4. Bill Lange, 1893-1899, NL OF. After the 1899 season, Bill left baseball, after only 7 seasons.

5. Ned Williamson, NL 3B/SS: 1878-1890
Played 8 seasons at 3rd, then 4 at SS, and finished with 52 g. at 3rd/21 at SS. Great glove, led league once each at doubles, HRs, Walks. In 1894, Reach Guide cited a 9 person poll, and James Hart, James O'Rourke and Arthur Irwin called Ned Williamson the games greatest player. He was also named in a 1938 article in Spalding Guide as one of the best ever 3Bmen.

6. Hughie Jennings, ML SS, 1B, 1891 - 1902; Detroit manager, 1907-20; Giants coach, 1921-25

7. Dan Brouthers

8. Ed Delahanty

9. Willie Keeler

10. Michael "King" Kelly

Honorable Mentions:

11. Charlie Bennett, (NL catcher, 1878 - 1893)
Kid Nichols, "Charley Bennett was the best catcher during my time. He worked with me in Boston until he lost his legs in a railroad accident. He went through several seasons without having a passed ball. He never had an equal as a throw to bases." Bennett was the catcher of the world champion Detroit Team of 1887.

On January 12, 1894, at the age of 39, while still active as a ballplayer, Charlie Bennett was run over by a train at Wellsville, KS, and had to have both his legs amputated. Detroit's ballpark was subsequently named after Charlie.

12. Jimmy McAleer, (ML OF, 1889-98, 01-02,07), (ML manager, 1901-11)
1. James R. McAleer's entry in the 1932 Official Baseball Guide. Here is an excerpt. "No outfielder has lived who could cover more ground than McAleer, and perhaps none who could cover as much back of him and to either side. He made sensational catches appear easy."

13. Martin Bergen, Red Sox catcher, 1896 - 1899, In 1898 Bergen was the best catcher in the National league, and his gingery work behind the bat did a great deal to win the pennant for the Boston team that season. in 1897 he caught in nearly all the championship games in first-class style.

Bergen was one of the greatest defensive catchers that ever donned a mask. Possessed of an arm of steel, he snapped the ball around the infield like a shot, and was regarded as the equal of Buck Ewing in point of throwing ability. He was well-nigh perfect on foul flies, and a timely, reliable batsman.

On January 19, 1900, at the age of 28, Martin Bergen, due to mental illness, killed his wife, daughter, son and himself.

14. Dummy Hoy, NL CF, 1888-1902, exc. 1890 Player's L., 1891, a L.

15. Jimmy Ryan, NL OF, 1885-1903, defensive great, led L. in H, D, HR, SLG. in 1888. Was with Cap Anson's Chicago Cubs all but last 2 yrs.
Midway through his career, on August 6, 1893, at 6AM, while with his Chicago Cubs team mates on a train, was horribly injured in a Lake Shore train crash.

16. George Gore, NL OF, 1879-1892, great defense, with Cap Anson's Chicago Cubs, 1879-1886. Led L. twice in R, 3 times in Walks. In 1890, only played 77 g., but led L. in BA, OBP, SLG.

[538280]

My Slate of Candidates For the Greatest Players of the 19th Century:


1. Buck Ewing

2. Cap Anson

3. Herman Long

4. Bill Lange

5. Ned Williamson

6. Hughie Jennings

7. Ed Delahanty

8. Dan Brouthers

10. Willie Keeler

11. Mikael "King" Kelly

12. Charlie Bennett

Bill,

No Roger Connor? He was the best slugger ever until Babe Ruth, and I think he held the home run record until Ruth broke it. Why no Roger Connor in your list?

Roger Connor

OPS+-154 (25th all-time)
Batter-Fielder Wins-43.4
Win Shares-363 (29.45 per 162 games)
Black Ink-31 (avg. HOFer=27)
Gray Ink-269 (avg. HOFer=144)
HOF Standards-55.7 (avg. HOFer 50)
HOF Monitor-104 (likely HOFer 100)

Compare that with Cap Anson, the other great 19th century first baseman:

Cap Anson

OPS+-139
Batter-Fielder Wins-35.4
Win Shares-381 (27.12 per 162 games)
Black Ink-52
Gray Ink-358
HOF Standards-63.4
HOF Monitor-182.5

Anson is better by Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF Standards, and HOF Monitor. Connor is better by OPS+ and Batter-Fielder Wins. Anson has more career win shares, but Connor is better per 162 games. Make your own judgements.

I would rank Anson higher, just because he has better longevity. However, I think Connor had the better peak. They were both greats, and I don't understand how Bill could possibly not call Connor one of the 12 best 19th century players.

[Bill Burgess]

Chris,

I am not that strong in pre-1900 players. That and Negro L. has always been some of my weak areas. I haven't looked into Roger Connor that much. But I'll take your word for it.

Bil

[538280]

Chris,

I am not that strong in pre-1900 players. That and Negro L. has always been some of my weak areas. I haven't looked into Roger Connor that much. But I'll take your word for it.

Bil

Bill,

I thought you had an ego, but maybe I was wrong. You are probably the most knowledgeable person on the Negro Leagues and 19th century players on all of BBF. I'm not that stong on 19th century players, which is why I forgot some players on the poll, such as Dan Brouthers and Ned Williamson. I am stong on the Negro Leagues, but you are stronger there than most too. Maybe you just forgot Connor.

[ElHalo]

1. Ed Delahanty
...
...
...
2. Dan Brouthers
...
...
...
3. Everyone else

The first guys to pop into my head behind Delahanty and Brouthers would be Connor, Barnes, Jennings, and Keeler, but they're all miles behind Delahanty and Brouthers.

[Baseball Guru]

I added Brouthers to the list..

I also think that Pete Browning should have been put on the poll..

As for the best it was a tough choice for me between Brouthers and Anson and I finally decided on Anson...

Of course, honorable mention goes to my guy Caruthers;)

[Bill Burgess]

Chris,

You have admirable and wonderful humility. I hope to someday reach your level of humility.

Negro Leagues/Pre-1900 players have always been among my weakest areas.
And Japanese, Cuban, Mexican league players don't register at all. A language I never learned. Sadly, a blank page in my head. So I defer to those who are well-read in those areas. Like Jim Albright.

That is why I have to read so much. But I honestly know very little about Roger Connor, Bid McPhee, Billy Hamilton, Bill Dahlen, Sam Thompson, Ross Barnes, Bob Caruthers, Pete Browning and a lot of the others that most folks know. They are merely vague names to me. I am not familiar with this area at all, I am embarrassed to admit. I spend so much time doing research on my projects, that I seldom get the time to read up on my weaker areas.

Someday I hope to make up for that.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

I consider Imapotato & Chancellor the most informed, familiar members on pre-1900 players we have here.

RuthMayBond & SABR Matt have done stat research on pre-1900 players, but surprisingly don't seem to be well-read about the guys they rate! Most unusual circumstances.

Jackie42 is probably one of our most informed members on Negro Leagues players.

BB

[Blackout]

Bill,

No Roger Connor? He was the best slugger ever until Babe Ruth, and I think he held the home run record until Ruth broke it. Why no Roger Connor in your list?


cap anson had 21 in 1887

i dont know whether you'd want to classify Conner as a "slugger" though, because looking at the amount of triples he got, I'd take a guess that most of his HRs were inside-the-park, which would make him more of a speedster

either way, still a pretty good player

[Dodger]

Pitchers had the most value in 19th Century ball just based on their numbers of innings pitched, and some like Bob Caruthers were also fine hitters.

Setting pitchers aside, I would go with Ed Delahanty by a wide margin. Sure Dan Brouthers and Roger Connor had batting stats that look as good, and guys like Buck Ewing and King Kelly were very effective and versital players, but I think dominating in a single league in the 1890s is far more impressive than putting big numbers in the 1880s.

[Bill Burgess]

I may not know very much about the pre-1900 players, but I do feel one thing very strongly. Their stats from that time period should not be the only thing to go on.

The real and only experts from that era, were those who played then. They knew each other very well. And they all strongly believed that Buck Ewing was their best player, with Cap Anson his only serious rival.

Most people today don't remember that in 1936, there were supposed to originally be 5 pre- 1900 players elected along with the Original 5.

It didn't work out that way. Needing 59 votes to get in, the leading vote getters were Buck Ewing with 40, Cap Anson 40, Keeler 33, Young 32, Ed Delahanty 22, McGraw 17, Herman Long 16, Charlie Radbourn 16, Mike Kelly 16, Amos Rusie 12. So none got elected.

So, in 1939, Judge Landis, Ford Frick and William Harridge selected Buck Ewing, Cap Anson, Al Spalding, Candy Cummings, Comiskey, Radbourne for inclusion in the Hall. Less desirous way to get in. Apparently, the post 1940 world has forgotten why 40 original voters thought Buck Ewing was fully the equal of Anson, as a player. I plan to remind them.

Important distinction: Buck Ewing was not merely considered the finest catcher who ever lived, by most who saw him, up until the mid-30's. He was thought of by many as the greatest PLAYER who ever lived, and the greatest PLAYER of the pre-1900 era (but only when he was catching).

Most well-informed baseball fans now consider Buck Ewing the best all-around player who played pre-1900. So why are members so bashful about acknowledging these simple things.

Bill Burgess

[538280]

cap anson had 21 in 1887

i dont know whether you'd want to classify Conner as a "slugger" though, because looking at the amount of triples he got, I'd take a guess that most of his HRs were inside-the-park, which would make him more of a speedster

either way, still a pretty good player

I meant the career record, not the single season record, and anyway, Ed Williamson held the single season record before Ruth. Williamson hit 27 home runs in 1884, which was the record until Ruth hit 29 in 1919.

I honestly don't know whether Connor was a true slugger or really a speedster who got inside the park homers. Maybe he was a speedster, but I tend to think he was a pure slugger, just because he was 6'3'' and 220 pounds. My best guess is that he was an immensely strong man who could hit the ball a mile, but I could be wrong.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

1. Ed Delahanty
...
...
...
2. Dan Brouthers
...
...
...
3. Everyone else

The first guys to pop into my head behind Delahanty and Brouthers would be Connor, Barnes, Jennings, and Keeler, but they're all miles behind Delahanty and Brouthers.

No Cap Anson eh??? Oh thats right......

[flash143817]

1. Ed Delahanty
...
...
...
2. Dan Brouthers
...
...
...
3. Everyone else

The first guys to pop into my head behind Delahanty and Brouthers would be Connor, Barnes, Jennings, and Keeler, but they're all miles behind Delahanty and Brouthers.

I can't believe it, but I completely agree with this post. Delahanty and Brouthers were miles ahead of everyone else offensively. Which one to choose is tough, but for me it has to be one of those 2.

1. Delahanty
2. Brouthers
3. Ewing
4. Kelly
5. Anson
6. Conner
7. Hamilton
8. Browning
9. Thompson
10. McGraw

[Dodger]

I may not know very much about the pre-1900 players, but I do feel one thing very strongly. Their stats from that time period should not be the only thing to go on.

Bill,

I'm familiar with the Old Bill James Abstract article on Ewing and many of the quotes and the HOF Old Timers vote. And I do believe that Buck Ewing was a great player. He was a defensive star at a key position and could play everywhere on the field. I'm sure that all those old writers truly believe that he was the best. But they did not have access to all the statistics and metrics that we have today. I'm sure Buck made a lot a great plays, impressive highlight type plays that stuck in peoples minds, kind of like a Ozzie Smith or Ken Griffey in the field. Those types of spectacular plays do a lot for a player's public image. As great a player as Ozzie Smith, no amount of defensive wizardry can compensate for other player's superior offensive skills. I'm sure a guy like Dan Brouthers seemed like a one dimensional, flat flooted, boring slugger versus a versatile defensive wiz like Buck Ewing, but in all likelihood, his 70 points of OBP and 60 points were more valuable.

[Bill Burgess]

Dodger,

Thank you for chatting with me on Buck. Yeah, I agree that it's tough to assess players who played so long ago.

Concerning him, the aspect of his play which led his peers to hold him in awe was actually 2-fold.

1. Pitch selection - It was said that he was a Ty Cobb behind the plate. He had catalogued every hitter in the league, according to their hitting strengths/weaknesses. He called his game so as to keep the enemy off their game. Because he had the hitters in HIS head, his pitchers could relax and focus all their efforts on their mechanics. This skill awed his peers. He maximized his staff's gifts, and minimized their flaws.

2. His arm - He threw from his crouch. Never rose from his squat. He slung it side-arm, using his forearm muscle so well, that he could nail runners better from his crouch, better than others could throw who rose and threw standing upright.

So those were the 2 assets which Buck's peers never got over. The fact that he could also run well, and hit and play elsewhere were never the things which made him so great or so famous.

Great chatting.

Bill

[ElHalo]

Bill,

One thing you do have to understand is that you probably put more emphasis on a catcher's defensive abilities than anyone in recorded history. There's a fairly general consensus that Ray Schalk was about as perfect as you can get at C defense, but you'd probably be laughed at for saying that he's even one of the top 100 players of all time.

[Dodger]

But Schalk was a below average hitter with a career OPS+ of 83, while Ewing was 130+ in about the same number of plate appeareances.

Both were great defensive catchers and I've always wished that they kept catcher "caught stealing' numbers.

Ewing did have 1017 assists in 636 career games at catcher which indicates a great arm while Schalk had 1811 in 1727 games.

Some contempories of each:
Charlie Bennett, 1048 in 954 games
King Kelly, 857 in 583 games
Chief Zimmer, 1580 in 1239 games
Wilber Robinson 1454 in 1316 games

Luke Ferrell, 1084 assists in 1562 games
Wally Schang, 1420 in 1435 games
Muddy Ruel 1136 in 1410

Looks like they both had outstanding arms for their era.

Back to the question of the best players of the 19th century, I'd still say that guys like Delahanty, Brouthers and Connor were more valuable during their careers than Buck Ewing, but he was a great and kind of a unique player in baseball history.

Another of my favorite 19th century guys is Hughie Jennings, really only had 5 good years but may have been the best player in baseball for a 3 or 4 year span.

[Dodger]

On a related topic, anybody have a suggestion about some 19th century baseball books.

I would recommend:

The Great Encylopedia of 19th Century ML Baseball by David Nemec
Where they Ain't by Burt Solomon

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

You have to understand that I am a very subjective person. And I value catchers very, very highly. I accept Schalk as a very great defensive catcher, but have a hard time ranking him, for defense, over Charlie Bennett or Johnny Kling, or Biz Mackey. And nowhere near Buck Ewing.

Bill

[ElHalo]

Jim,

You have to understand that I am a very subjective person. And I value catchers very, very highly. I accept Schalk as a very great defensive catcher, but have a hard time ranking him, for defense, over Charlie Bennett or Johnny Kling, or Biz Mackey. And nowhere near Buck Ewing.

Bill

Gotta disagree with you there. To me, Schalk is quite clearly the greatest defensive C of all time, by a wide margin. But that's still not enough to get him to crack my top 100 all time... or even 200.

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

I don't think you realize how close we are in a number of issues. Among Fever members, we are much closer in philosophy than anyone else.

Where do you rank a catcher who was a top, elite historical catcher, who was called the best player of history by some, could hit well, could run some, and could be played anywhere on the field? Finished with 130 for OPS+.

Where does he fit in your all time list? Just curious. Consider all the factors now.

Bill Burgess

[Blackout]

Jim,

I think you don't realize how close we are in a number of issues.

Where do you rank a catcher who was a top, elite historical catcher, who was called the best player of history by some, could hit well, could run some, and could be played anywhere on the field? Finished with 130 for OPS+.

Where does he fit in your all time list? Just curisous. Consider all the factors now.

Bill Burgess

bill, can you clear out your PM box? i have a question

[ElHalo]

Jim,

I think you don't realize how close we are in a number of issues.

Where do you rank a catcher who was a top, elite historical catcher, who was called the best player of history by some, could hit well, could run some, and could be played anywhere on the field? Finished with 130 for OPS+.

Where does he fit in your all time list? Just curisous. Consider all the factors now.

Bill Burgess

Well, Ewing takes several big hits in my book. One, no player from before the mound was moved back cracks my top 50. Two, he didn't really play all that much at C (yes, yes, I know why, due to the conditions of the era), so his defense there doesn't really matter that much. I do rate him pretty highly, top 100, but nowhere near where you do.

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

C'mon now. You're getting a little lax. You, like me, give high regards to eye-witnesses (re: Jeter, Sheffield, etc.).

You do not discriminate against early players. You do not worship at the alter of HR/walks type players (R. Jackson, Schmidt).

If anything, you might not credit highly enough for good defense/running. And you might still over-credit for post-season. But Ewing did lead his men to a WS.

And you do not over-debit for short careers (RE: Sisler, Joss, Waddell).

I am at a loss as to your inability to recognize some of my players, especially Buck. He would seem to be so prime to register on your radar. Would seem tailor made for your instincts. Where is he sitting in your top 100 at the moment? I realize our lists are subject to revisions regularly.

In good friendship,
Bill

[ElHalo]

He's probably sitting somewhere around 80 or so.

The fact is, nobody who comes from the period before the mound moved back ranks all that highly with me. I just see that period as a bit different from real baseball. Delehanty is about as early as I go to consider players truly great.

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

Understood, but still let down. Sometimes, every great while, it pays to make a rare exception, to the general good rules.

Bill

[King Kelly]

I'd have to say, <ahem>
1. Michael J. Kelly (formidable, innovative and a loveable rogue)
2. Dan Brouthers
3. Ed Delahanty
4. George Wright
5. Cap Anson
6. James O'Rourke
7. John Ward
8. Buck Ewing
9. Tim Keefe
10. John Clarkson

[Buzzaldrin]

I meant the career record, not the single season record, and anyway, Ed Williamson held the single season record before Ruth. Williamson hit 27 home runs in 1884, which was the record until Ruth hit 29 in 1919.

You can't really count either Williamson's 1884, or any other Chicago player from 1884 (including Anson's career high 21). That single year, balls that bounced over the short fences in fluky lake park were counted as homers instead of doubles (as they were all other years). Chicago had FOUR players with over 20 homers and 142 as a team- only 16 behind the 27 Yankees, so you can see what a difference that rule made.

As to Roger Connor- nobody realized that Ruth broke his career record when it happened. People didn't pick it up until Aaron was closing in on Ruth, and someone had the bright idea to wonder whose record Ruth had broken. A very very much forgotten, and very very good player who most likely would have missed the hall without the (re)discovery of his record (note his 1976 election).

Much as I love Billy Hamilton- for everything- the way he changed the game, the slides, the insane daring, and the excitement that made he and King Kelly the best eyeball candy players of the Jurassic era, for sheer talent, I have to say Delahanty was the best of the bunch. He really COULD do it all- hit, hit for power, run, field, throw, play pretty much anywhere, you name it. Ed would have shone in any era. A true star in every way- including his tabloid personality, but you gotta live with that, I guess. Even the vets knew what they were doing- sure Anson, Ewing, and Radbourn were elected in 39, but Anson was not just as a pure player, Ewing had the catcher premium, and the Hoss had his great year (which was even better because he had it out of pure spite). Had he stuck around another two or three years, he would have been elected by the writers and not the vets- like Keeler was, but I guess death waits for no man.

[TonyK]

While I am stalling because I want to make up my mind without outside influence, I bet there was a poll of some type taken. Would the HOF know of any polls done by sportswriters or players asking this same question? Or any of you?

[ElHalo]

While I am stalling because I want to make up my mind without outside influence, I bet there was a poll of some type taken. Would the HOF know of any polls done by sportswriters or players asking this same question? Or any of you?

There's several common answers.

The contemporary opinion was Buck Ewing. For all the reasons Bill said. However, a catcher catching from 50 feet against guys throwing underhand bears so little resemblance to what I think of when I think of a "catcher" that I find it very difficult to even consider him to have played the position as I define it, must less to be one of the greatest of all time.

Then there's Barnes, who absolutely has to be considered. Sure, he was playing under vastly different rules, but so was Ewing, and Barnes' numbers from the 2B position are just mind blowing.

The common, non-hardcore fan answer is Cap Anson, just because he put up such monstrous numbers.

Then there's the people like me, who focus a whole lot more on the "modern" 19th century game players... mostly Delahanty and a bunch of players who played for the Orioles. Jennings is another name to throw out.

[Bill Burgess]

The contemporary opinion was Buck Ewing. For all the reasons Bill said. However, a catcher catching from 50 feet against guys throwing underhand bears so little resemblance to what I think of when I think of a "catcher" that I find it very difficult to even consider him to have played the position as I define it, must less to be one of the greatest of all time.

Jim,

When Buck Ewing started catching in 1880, underhand pitching was over, and they were throwing hard overhand. Buck caught Amos Rusie in 1892, and Ed Crane, the second hardest thrower, all at 50 feet. And no shin guards.

Make sure of your facts, Jim.

Bill

[Buzzaldrin]

um... I hate to say this, but make sure of YOUR facts, Bill. A pitcher could not deliver from above the waist until 1883, and full restrictions on pitching were not removed until 1884. Ewing was taking it close range when he came on.

[Bill Burgess]

um... I hate to say this, but make sure of YOUR facts, Bill. A pitcher could not deliver from above the waist until 1883, and full restrictions on pitching were not removed until 1884. Ewing was taking it close range when he came on.

I was wrong. Pitchers were required to throw below the waist until 1883, and for 1883, they could throw up to level of the waiste, which we call side-arm.

And you are correct that it was not until 1884 that pitchers could throw any way they wanted to.

With respect to Buck Ewing, he was catching underhanded pitching from, 1880-83. But the majority of his career was after that. So, ElHalo was correct, from 1880-83.

But even underhanded pitchers were allowed to snap their pitches. And we know that Carl Mays from a later time, could throw REAL hard. We don't know how the pitchers from 1880-83 were throwing. And I sure wish I knew more about that particular issue.

Bill Burgess

[Buzzaldrin]

What it was like? Well, I, for one, bet it was damn rough. You ever watch fast pitch softball? These guys were throwing smoke from 50 feet, and after Cummings and Goldsmith, they were throwing curves too. The pitcher had a 6 foot by 6 foot box that he could move around in, so he wasn't always coming from straight on, and it was only after 1879 that he actually HAD to face the batter before pitching. It was also eight balls to make a walk, so pitchers had the luxury of wasting a few pitches, or keeping it on or just out of the edges of the strike zone.

Guys like Radbourn threw underhanded their entire career, even after 1884, but it was the case that- since even the curveball was new, virtually all pitchers then relied on speed to get by. John Clarkson was the first great overhander (yet another reason why I admire him more and more, the more I learn about him), and one of the first that didn't need speed to win. He threw a direct overhand curve ball that broke (apparently) straight DOWN. I read a thing that claims his break was almost unnaturally sharp because of the strength of his fingers- he supposedly could spin a billiard ball around the table with one twist and hit four banks. Look at his first few years once overhand was allowed- he came up late in 1884 and went 10-3, then won 209 games in five years after that, culminating in his 1889 triple crown year, one of the finest years ever. Nobody's won that many in five years (and I don't count Al Spalding)- not since 1876.

But back to Ewing- he was catching bullets. Think what it must have done to his hands. I find it hard to believe that all his contemporaries were mistaken- he must have seriously been one of the all time best.

[TonyK]

Good pitchers and catchers tended to dominate the game until the pitching distance was moved back. So I think you could say that Ewing as a catcher had to rated right up at the top. That does leave several years where another player's production and defense could have made him the best overall player.

[Brian McKenna]

many game accounts long ago would list the score and the battery and not mention any other players - maybe it's because they dominated as mentioned

[csh19792001]

Post

Buzz:
I recognize that picture of Delahanty (saw it in one of the books- he's in a Senators uniform, right?). Is he one of your favorite oldtimers?

For anyone interested in 19th century "Base Ball" and/or Big Ed, I'd recommend:

Ed Delahanty in the Emerald Age of Baseball by Jerrold Casway

July 2, 1903: The Mysterious Death of Hall-of-Famer Big Ed Delahanty by Mike Sowell

[Buzzaldrin]

He's up there with Arlie and Sliding Billy if I have to really choose. Coming close on their heels are Tip O'Neill, Ross Barnes, Cap Anson, Asa Brainard, and Johnny Clarkson.

I used to have Juan Marichal as my photo but it became Big Ed time. That IS Ed in a Senators uniform- you wouldn't think a guy that big could steal 50 in a season, hit 4 homers in a game (only two of them inside the park, not all four as popular opinion claims), hit .400 three times, and be one of the best fielders of his era, but he was all that.

It's gonna be Eddie Plank time soon, though.

[TonyK]

The poll is closed so my vote for Buck Ewing won't be counted. I decided on him because I hold creedence to what his peers had to say, rewarded him for playing all nine positions, and felt his fielding as a catcher was an advantage over Anson's fielding as a 1B. His career OPS+ of 130 tells me he was no slouch with the bat too.

[Bill Burgess]

Anybody Ever Hear of Charlie Ferguson?

Introducing Charles J. Ferguson:
Born: April 17, 1863, Charlottesville, VA
Died: April 29, 1888, Philadelphia, PA, at age of 25, of typhoid fever
BB/TR; 6'0, 165


He attracted attention while pitching for the independent Richmond, VA team. He shut out Boston's ML team on 4 singles.

In 1884, he signed with the Philadelphia Nationals.

In 1884, he went 21-25 for them. 3.54 ERA;

In 1885, he was 26-20. 2.22 ERA. In 61 games, he hit .308, .368, .379

In 1886, he was 30-9. ERA - 1.98. Finished with 11 straight wins.

In 1887, he was 22-10. 3.00 ERA; In 72 games, he hit .337, .417, .470, which included 14 doubles, 6 triples, and 3 homers, in only 264 ABs.

Now one might say that he was a fairly good pitcher, but others were even better. And you would be right. But, . . . pitching wasn't all of Charlie's talents.

He was a superlative player in the field too. In fact, when he wasn't pitching, he was doing duties elsewhere, and very well at them too.

He played OF 53 games, 2B 27 games, and 3B 8 games. His versatility was rare, even for a league in its formative stages, where specialization hadn't locked in yet, and many players were noted for their ability to be plugged in to a variety of utility positions, including pitching.

Twice he hit over .300 with power. He covered CF with good speed.

At the end of 1887, his team had the chance to finish 2nd. So Charlie played 2B for the final 17 games, when he wasn't pitching. He won 7 games, hit .361 and fielded .963. His team won 16 of its last 17 games and came in 2nd.

--------W-----L------PCT------G-----SH------INN-------BB----So----ERA
-------99-----64-----.607-----183----13-----1514-------290---726---2.67

Bill Hanna had this to say about Charlie, in a June, 1924 article for Baseball Magazine I posted earlier in this thread, post #23.

"Ferguson belongs in the "twenty-five" because he was the game's best all around player. There have been men who could look after as many positions, but none who could play them all so well. Ferguson was a good (garbled) regular of any ball club of the present; he was a good second baseman, not just a fill-er-in, but good: he could play the outfield well enough to make the absence of the regular no handicap, and he was a first class batter. There hasn't been an all around man since his day to equal him."

Wilbert Robinson had this to say about Charlie. In June, 1931, rated him 5th greatest player of all time.
"Hans Wagner was one. Back in the old, old days the Phillies had a man who could pitch like a streak and play the infield, too. His name was Charley Ferguson. You can't leave him off. There's Hughey Jennings, too. He was an unbeatable shortstop. As I said before, it's unfair to name just a few. Think of the many good ones I've never seen! But if I have to name the best five you can put down Cobb, Keeler, Ruth, Wagner and Ferguson for me."

[foxy ned]

I guess if you mean overall player, than Willie Keeler or Hughie Jennings... but both were schooled by the greatest mind in baseball...Ned Hanlon. I guess if the question was "who has the biggest influence on 19th century baseball" then Ned would be the hands down winner..... as far as play goes..... its Willie or Hughie....FN

[torez77]

I guess if you mean overall player, than Willie Keeler or Hughie Jennings... but both were schooled by the greatest mind in baseball...Ned Hanlon. I guess if the question was "who has the biggest influence on 19th century baseball" then Ned would be the hands down winner..... as far as play goes..... its Willie or Hughie....FN

Keeler played over half of his career in the 20th century, though. But his best years were in the 19th. Jennings was definitely the greatest SS of the 19th. I haven't made my vote yet, cuz it's very hard to choose from this list. Need more time.

The 19th century stats are great eye candy, the likes of which we'll never see again. Duffy's .440, O'Neill's .435, Radbourn's 59 wins, and the list goes on.....

[Bill Burgess]

Jennings was definitely the greatest SS of the 19th.
You are probably right, & Hughie was a great defensive player also. But for defense only, don't forget the great Herman Long. Many considered him the greatest SS ever until the coming of Honus Wagner. If Long had hit better, (he was a leadoff man), he'd be up much higher in general.

Bill

[SABR Steve]

There's several common answers.

The contemporary opinion was Buck Ewing. For all the reasons Bill said. However, a catcher catching from 50 feet against guys throwing underhand bears so little resemblance to what I think of when I think of a "catcher" that I find it very difficult to even consider him to have played the position as I define it, must less to be one of the greatest of all time.


Catchers in Ewing's day did not have the protection that modern catchers have. I'm not sure what kind of glove Ewing used, but I do know that Silver Flint never wore a glove at all. I just wonder how they did it sometimes receiving a 90 mile-an-hour fast ball bare-handed from just 50 feet away. Could today's catchers do it, or want to do it?

Also don't forget the greatest team of the 1890's: the Boston Beaneaters.

[Bill Burgess]

Catchers in Ewing's day did not have the protection that modern catchers have. I'm not sure what kind of glove Ewing used, but I do know that Silver Flint never wore a glove at all. I just wonder how they did it sometimes receiving a 90 mile-an-hour fast ball bare-handed from just 50 feet away. Could today's catchers do it, or want to do it?

Also don't forget the greatest team of the 1890's: the Boston Beaneaters.

Buck Ewing wore a pillow-style catcher's mitt. It had no webbing. The ball had to be caught in the pocket, which was about the size of the ball. And the catcher had to catch the ball with both hands, exposing his bare hand to foul tips, which caused many catchers to end up with gnarled hands, and many broken bones.

Today's gloves catch the ball in the webbing, with a nice creased hinge action, which closes the glove on impact, saving the catcher's bare hand.

And the old catcher's had nowhere near the quality of body armour worn today. No steel-reinforced shoes, poor bird-cage quality mask, thin chest protectors, NO shin-guards, probably no jock-cup.

I do believe that catchers always wore gloves. I think, but am not sure, that they were the only players who were allowed to wear a glove. Possibly the 1st basemen wear allowed to wear gloves too, but again am not sure.

Pitchers were required to throw below the waist until 1883, and for 1883, they could throw up to the shoulder, which we call side-arm.

And you are correct that it was not until 1884 that pitchers could throw any way they wanted to.

With respect to Buck Ewing, he was catching underhanded pitching from, 1880-83. But the majority of his career was after that.

But even underhanded pitchers were allowed to snap their pitches. And we know that Carl Mays from a later time, could throw REAL hard. We don't know how the pitchers from 1880-83 were throwing. And I sure wish I knew more about that particular issue

[SABR Steve]

Ewing, I think, caught a lot of pitches on the bounce. Years ago I saw a picture showing that method. I believe they moved up behind the batter once a batter reached base, and even then didn't crouch low as they do today.

[Bill Burgess]

Ewing, I think, caught a lot of pitches on the bounce. Years ago I saw a picture showing that method. I believe they moved up behind the batter once a batter reached base, and even then didn't crouch low as they do today.

I highly doubt that Ewing caught the ball on the bounce. He was right up there, and he was famous for throwing out runners. His secret was that he had a huge forearm muscle, which allowed he to fire from his squat.

He didn't come up to throw, but slung it sidearm like a bullet. Anymost no other catcher could do that. He threw out that forearm muscle in the spring of 1892, and that ended his effectiveness. Which is why he caught so few games. He hardly caught after that. He played OF.

But you are quite right that many catchers did not squat all the way down, for many decades to come. But Ewing was one who did. He, King Kelly and Charlie Bennett defined great defensive catching in that era.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

However, a catcher catching from 50 feet against guys throwing underhand bears so little resemblance to what I think of when I think of a "catcher" that I find it very difficult to even consider him to have played the position as I define it, must less to be one of the greatest of all time.

--------------------------Many Underhanders, But None Like Mays
--------------------------John B. Foster Tells How Pitching of the Yankees'
--------------------------Submarine Star Differs From those of Old Boys

-------------------------(The Sporting News, Thursday, November 24, 1921, pp. 8)


Those of the younger generation of baseball patrons and players who see Carl Mays pitch for the first time marvel thereout and exclaim "How funny!" One or two of our modern essayists on the national game have been moved to say that Mays is the only pitcher of his peculiar style in baseball history. That is modern enthusiasm carried away with a peculiar desire to deny antiquity any claim of parity with the present, writes John B. Foster in the New York Sun.

Back in 1880, there were scores who pitched like Mays. Burkalow, who threw the ball for the Hop Hitters team about that time, stooped so low with his underhand delivery that he had to wear blinkers on his knuckles to keep the skin intact, because he scraped his hand so often on the ground. Jim McCormick, who was one of the great pitchers of baseball and who died not long ago in Paterson, N. J. pitched underhand when he began and if he had been pitching today he would have been a leader in one of the major leagues.

In 1878 and 1879 they were just beginning to break away from underhand pitching. Side arm pitching came in almost that time. Umpires not only had to watch the ball in the days when underhand pitching was the only kind that way legal, but they were also compelled to keep an eye on the pitcher's arm and tell him not to get it about the waist.

It was as common to yell at the umpire, "Make him keep his arm down, Mr. Umpire," as it is common now for the coach to yell at the batter, "Make it be over, old boy; the good one's left."

---------------------------Curves It From Below
Wherein Mays is not like the pitchers of the days that have gone to join Ptolemy and Julius Caesar, is the fact that he pitches a fast curve with an underhand motion. The old boys who threw underhand years ago did not know much about the curve and if they had known anything about it they would have had a lot of trouble to counterfeit Mays' curve.

Analyze pitching to its final separation of twists and squirming and you will find that there is really but one positive curve in baseball.

There is a heap of talk about screws, shoots, twists, slants and various other departures from a straight and narrow line, but there is just the one curve which the right-hand pitcher pitches to the right-hand batter, and which the left-hand pitcher pitches to the left-hand batter. The right-hand pitcher can throw the ball with a lot of speed so that it bears in toward the batter and the left-hand pitcher can throw the same way to make a left-hand batter gasp twice before the ball gets by him, but there is no positive curve to it.

The ball does drop. That isn't a curve. It is the application of the break of reverse English. If you are clever you can make a billiard ball do stunts of that character on the billiard table. There is no up curves and the nearest thing any pitcher ever came to one was Billy Rhines of Cincinnati. Not long ago a learned dissertation was written on Rhines' pitching by one who never saw him pitch, but a little thing like that doesn't matter between friends.

-------------------------------Same Principles After All

Mays excels because he curves the ball outside to right-hand batters and at the same time makes it break down like a drop ball. He is not the only pitcher who can do that, but he is one of the few pitchers who can do it with speed, and it is the ability to put smoke on the ball that is one of his great assets.

A. G. Spalding used to pitch the ball and put speed on it. He didn't throw it. He had the best record of any pitcher in the history of baseball and he served the ball to the batter exactly as you might start a ball up a bowling alley. All the pitchers in his day had to deliver the ball in that manner.

Some old fellows who are about 60 now can remember when they had to pitch like that, and they were good pitchers, too. It would surprise some of the haughty latter day ball players who become tragedians and all that sort of thing, if they got out on the ball field and tried to bat against some of those old boys. They would find that a little thing like curving the ball underhand with a straight arm delivery, just as if you were throwing knots down from the top of the woolpile, would stand them first on one foot and then on the other trying to hit safely." (The Sporting News, Thursday, November 24, 1921, pp. 8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author's Note:

Pitchers were required to throw below the waist until 1883.

For 1883, they could throw up to the shoulder, which we call side-arm.

From 1884 onward, pitchers could throw any way they wanted to.

[Imapotato]

The winner is....

Roger Connor

Not only was his OPS and OPS+ off the charts but if you gander at the career leaderboards at 1901...the beginning of "modern" baseball

Connor was 20th in BA with .317
2nd in hits with 2467
1st in HRs by a good amount with 138
2nd in 2bs with 441
2nd in RBI with 1322
1st in 3bs by a even bigger amount then HRs...with 233
3rd in runs with 1620
2nd in BBs with 1002

The man was amazing and gets very little credit of how better he was then Hamilton, Anson and Brouthers

Other then those 3 no other player could hold his jock in cumlative and % stats

[SABR Steve]

I highly doubt that Ewing caught the ball on the bounce. He was right up there, and he was famous for throwing out runners. His secret was that he had a huge forearm muscle, which allowed he to fire from his squat.

He didn't come up to throw, but slung it sidearm like a bullet. Anymost no other catcher could do that.

But you are quite right that many catchers did not squat all the way down, for many decades to come. But Ewing was one who did. He, King Kelly and Charlie Bennett defined great defensive catching in that era.

Bill

Well you could be right, but I bet he caught like most catchers in his early days. Being 1,300 miles from home at the moment, I don't have access to any of my resources I've collected since the 50's, so I should hold my tongue.

[Bill Burgess]

Well you could be right, but I bet he caught like most catchers in his early days. Being 1,300 miles from home at the moment, I don't have access to any of my resources I've collected since the 50's, so I should hold my tongue.

May I reprint this fantastic post #29, by Dodger? It shows assists/games, and Ewing leads the historical pack. Don't think he could do that if he were set-up too far back of the batter. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Schalk was a below average hitter with a career OPS+ of 83, while Ewing was 130+ in about the same number of plate appeareances.

Both were great defensive catchers and I've always wished that they kept catcher "caught stealing' numbers.

Ewing did have 1017 assists in 636 career games at catcher which indicates a great arm while Schalk had 1811 in 1727 games.

Some contempories of each:
Charlie Bennett, 1048 in 954 games
King Kelly, 857 in 583 games
Chief Zimmer, 1580 in 1239 games
Wilber Robinson 1454 in 1316 games

Luke Ferrell, 1084 assists in 1562 games
Wally Schang, 1420 in 1435 games
Muddy Ruel 1136 in 1410

Looks like they both had outstanding arms for their era.

[SABR Matt]

that is in fact a HUGE number of assists for such a short catching career (and I don't think there's any question he had a great arm when healthy)...I'll be interested to see how my attempts to improve on defensive analysis with some more accurate linear weights effects my rating of Ewing, which I must confess still bothers me (that I don't see him as more of a skilled fielder).

The work never ends...

[jalbright]

Matt,

I'm certainly not going to criticize you for continuing your efforts, but things like this persuade me these formulas are neither perfect nor perfectible. Of course, efforts like yours may lead to improvements in the formulas.

Jim Albright

[Bill Burgess]

An interesting exercise, for anyone with the time on their hands.

Take the leading catcher candidates, and build the following graph chart.

List the names on the left column, and across the top, list their games, assists/g, DP/g, E/g. That will give us their rates per game.

The candidates should include Bennett, Ewing, King Kelly, Kling, Bresnahan, Schalk, Archer, Cochrane, Dickey, Hartnett, Berra, Campanella, Bench, Carter, IRod, Piazza, Fisk, Munson, Schang, Pop Snyder, Don Bushong, Pat Moran.

Now a word of caution. The early pre-1900 catchers might have had one advantage in that runners ran more before 1920. And while that might be true, that advantage would be nullified by the fact that after Ewing's rep was established, the runners stopped running on him, denying him his fair allotment of opportunities.

Ewing was so denied of his chances that he had to resort to tricks, such as pretending a ball had gotten away from him, to sucker them to run. Poor guy.

Bill Burgess

[jalbright]

Bill

Any of these guys who threw to second well had fewer guys try it than they would against other catchers. The aggressiveness of runners in the early days due to the lesser number of homers is a far more significant factor.

Jim Albright

[Bill Burgess]

Any of these guys who threw to second well had fewer guys try it than they would against other catchers. The aggressiveness of runners in the early days due to the lesser number of homers is a far more significant factor.
Yes, I know that, Jim. And that is a problem. But still, Ewing's assists per game is second on the all time list only to Pop Snyder.

Ewing's lead is not only over modern catchers, due to more base traffic pre-1900, but he towers over all the early catcher's too, despite the disadvantage his arm reputation imposed on him.

Bill Burgess

[jalbright]

I agree the direct comparison to deadball guys is fine. Comparing him to, say, Johnny Bench, OTOH, runs smack dab into that problem. In cases like that, I'm rather convinced that because the home run wasn't in Ewing's game to nearly the same degree, runners were much more aggressive, and this fact favors Ewing in the comparison.

Jim Albright

[Buzzaldrin]

The winner is....

Roger Connor

Not only was his OPS and OPS+ off the charts but if you gander at the career leaderboards at 1901...the beginning of "modern" baseball

I'm sorry, but did I read that right? None of those players could equal his cumulative stats? So in 1901, Connor was second all time in RBI? Well, in 2006, Cap Anson is STILL third in career RBI. Connor had 2400 hits then? Anson had over 3000 and you claim Connor had better career stats?

Connor was a very good player, but not on the level of any of the three you mentioned. This thread is for best player of the 19th c, and Connor never dominated his era like those other boys. He was more like Eddie Murray, very good for a long time, but not the best in the league at any point.

Connor won a batting title, two slugging titles, led the league twice in triples, and only once each in doubles, homers, RBI, walks, ops+, and a whole three times in runs created. This from a man who, if he was 2nd in hits and 20th avg., had a hell of a lot of hitless at bats during his years.

Dan Brouthers was pretty much his contemporary. During their common era, Brouthers won five batting titles, five on base titles, SEVEN slugging titles, EIGHT ops+ titles, five times in runs created, and had more doubles, homers, runs, and RBI titles than Connor- who played in many more games. Brouthers career ops+ is still seventh all time, Connor falls 20 short of that.

There is simply no way you can claim that Connor was a better hitter than Dan Brouthers.

I don't know how to begin comparing Connor to Hamilton, since Hamilton revolutionized the use of speed in the game and defined the lead off man, and Connor was a slugging first sacker, but even in hitting- and Hamilton was by no means a power hitter, never finishing near the top in doubles, triples, or homers, but still leading the league twice in ops+. Hamilton averaged more than one run scored per game for his CAREER. five on base titles, five walk titles, five stolen base titles, in addition to his two batting titles. Hamilton was by far a more dangerous man to have a the bat than Connor.

Connor is more like Dave Orr, whose career ended in complete tragedy, depriving us of a hall of famer. Orr was easily as powerful as Connor, whacking up to 31 triples in a season, and just imagine what he could have done if he'd been around a couple years after his stroke in the mid 90's? No question, but he'd have a had a .400 year or two. I mean, he never once, in his whole career finished out of the league top five in hitting, in spite of all that muscle- who else can say that.

[SABR Steve]

I'm sorry, but did I read that right? None of those players could equal his cumulative stats? So in 1901, Connor was second all time in RBI? Well, in 2006, Cap Anson is STILL third in career RBI. Connor had 2400 hits then? Anson had over 3000 and you claim Connor had better career stats?

Be careful about batting titles; revisionists have been hard at work taking and giving them away. I don't mind it so much if there's a correction due to haphazard record keeping. However, I don't accept those take-aways that were resulted from modernists changing the rules of the past. That's not history as it happened, and dishonest to say the least.

[SABR Steve]

Yes, I know that, Jim. And that is a problem. But still, Ewing's assists per game is second on the all time list only to Pop Snyder.

Ewing's lead is not only over modern catchers, due to more base traffic pre-1900, but he towers over all the early catcher's too, despite the disadvantage his arm reputation imposed on him.

Bill Burgess

When was the rule changed that catchers no longer had to throw down to first for the putout? I'm far from home at the moment and can't easily find it. That may be a reason why there were so many assists. BTW, In my opinion Ewing belongs amongst the top 5 catchers of all time.

[Buzzaldrin]

Be careful about batting titles; revisionists have been hard at work taking and giving them away. I don't mind it so much if there's a correction due to haphazard record keeping. However, I don't accept those take-aways that were resulted from modernists changing the rules of the past. That's not history as it happened, and dishonest to say the least.

I agree with you. My point wasn't so much the numbers, it was that Brouthers offensively dominated the era in which he and Connor both played in many ways, and Connor didn't in any. While comparing eras is tricky and misleading at times, I don't think it is so when comparing two players from the same league at the same time. If one of them is consistently at the top of the league in many offensive departments, and the other one isn't, there first one is more of a dominating force 19 times out of 20.

Batting averages didn't really become a big deal until Lajoie and the new AL, and slugging averages I strongly doubt were even though of then, but they do provide a large measure of understanding for a past we never saw.

[Imapotato]

I'm sorry, but did I read that right? None of those players could equal his cumulative stats? So in 1901, Connor was second all time in RBI? Well, in 2006, Cap Anson is STILL third in career RBI. Connor had 2400 hits then? Anson had over 3000 and you claim Connor had better career stats?

No read it again

I said cumlative AND % stats

Anson had cumlative, but not % like Connor

Connor also was Top 10 in more categories then Anson...the only one he did not place in was SB's

[Buzzaldrin]

No read it again

I said cumlative AND % stats

Anson had cumlative, but not % like Connor

Connor also was Top 10 in more categories then Anson...the only one he did not place in was SB's

Again, you gotta be kidding. You're seriously claiming Connor was the best ballplayer of the 19th c? That's just plain ridiculous. he never ever stood out from the pack. Not at all. Anson only had cumulative? Anson was one of the best two or three clutch hitters of all time, hands down. he was not a power hitter, but still led his lead in RBI eight times, all in a 12 year period in the same league as Connor (he was second or third the other four years), truly one of the best money players of all time. Connor had two stand out years in his whole career- he just played a lot of games, was consistent as absolute hell, and had more power than Anson, but the best of the 19th c?

Look, Brouthers outslugged Connor, Stovey outpowered Conner, Hamilton outran Connor, Ewing outfielded Connor, Browning outhit Connor, and Anson outlived him.

There is no juistification, I mean none whatsoever, that this guy was the best 19th c. player. Was he an innovator? Was he a titan? Was he a leader? no no and no. He was good, very good, but he was NOT great. He never even had one single truly dominant year, let alone defined an era like the players you claim he was better than.

Oh, PS, as to the homers: harry stovey had 1650 less ab than Connor and 16 fewer home runs. Stovey also scored 1492 runs in 1486 games played, with five homer titles and four triples titles during the same period that Connor was busy being the "best power hitter of the 19th c" although Connor just couldn't top the league in anything much strangely enough. Stovey also managed a couple of stolen base titles too.

Connor was by no means the best power hitter in his league, let alone the best overall player of his era. He just plain wasn't, like Pete Rose was not the best player of the expansion era- just because you stick around and play a lot of games and are very very good, doesn't make you the best ever.

[SABR Steve]

I agree with you. My point wasn't so much the numbers, it was that Brouthers offensively dominated the era in which he and Connor both played in many ways, and Connor didn't in any.

Batting averages didn't really become a big deal until Lajoie and the new AL, and slugging averages I strongly doubt were even though of then, but they do provide a large measure of understanding for a past we never saw.

My opinion on batting averages was a general one, a pet peeve of mine. Brouthers, in my two-cent opinion, was the superior player of the two. Your statement about the popularity of batting averages, however, seems to me to be wrong. After all, hitters were listed by average in the Spalding Guides from 1876 on. They also featured the champion batters through comments and illustrations. Please don't ruin my day and prove otherwise.:(

[csh19792001]

I'd like to change my vote to Dan Brouthers. Unlike Anson, he didn't have an extremely weak 1870's league to beat up on and pile the big numbers up against. I used to go with Anson as the greatest 19th century player because of his indomiatble career totals, but then I learned more about the turly shoddy quality/organization of 1870's (particularly National Association) baseball.

Brouthers was a vastly superior hitter to either Connor or Anson. You can use EqA, OPS+, or whatever stat you'd like. Also, in terms of overall quality, Brouthers was the best of these three.

If you take into consideration historical contributions/importance, then it's still Anson. But I'm just speaking in terms of on-field accomplishments.

[RuthMayBond]

Again, you gotta be kidding. You're seriously claiming Connor was the best ballplayer of the 19th c? That's just plain ridiculous. he never ever stood out from the pack. Not at all. He never even had one single truly dominant year.Let me introduce you to 1885. Connors led the entire league in
Singles
Batting Average
On-base percentage
Hits
Total bases
Runs Created
Times on base
Most AB per strikeout

Let me introduce you to 1890. Connors led the league in
Slugging percent
On-base plus slugging percent
Home runs
Runs Created
Fewest AB per home run

I'm not sure else what the guy was supposed to do :ughh

[Bill Burgess]

I'd like to change my vote to Dan Brouthers.
Chris,

I changed your vote. I subtracted a vote from Anson and added it to Brouthers. The software does not allow us to move you name, however.

Bill

[torez77]

I gotta go with Dan Brouthers. Out of all 19th century players, he's got the highest OPS+, EqA, and averages more Win Shares. I don't believe I'm missing anybody else important. Brouthers gets my vote, but this poll is closed.....

[Buzzaldrin]

Let me introduce you to 1885. Connors led the entire league in
Singles
Batting Average
On-base percentage
Hits
Total bases
Runs Created
Times on base
Most AB per strikeout

Let me introduce you to 1890. Connors led the league in
Slugging percent
On-base plus slugging percent
Home runs
Runs Created
Fewest AB per home run

I'm not sure else what the guy was supposed to do :ughh

Again, not all time dominant seasons, just very good ones. The 1880's?

Look at Tip O'Neill in 1887, he hit .435, won the triple crown, and led the league in doubles, triples, and homers, still the only man ever to do that in a season, lets not get started about the fact that he also set the then all time slugging pct record, as well as leading in all those really really important categories Connor was great at in 1890, like fewest AB per home run. One of the great seasons of all time. Tip O'Neill is not, however, the greatest player of the 19th c.

Look at Bob Caruthers in 1886. I mention him here, since Connor had a 201 OPS+ in 1885 (which did NOT lead the league), and Caruthers had 200 in 1886. However, Caruthers also won 30 games and finished second in the league in ERA, and followed it up in 1887 by hitting .357, finishing second to O'Neill in slugging, and wwinning 29 games and leading the league in winning percentage at the same time. These are all time great seasons. Connor could not do these things, and yet few would regard Caruthers as the best player of the 19th c.

Those are all time seaons, not Connor's.

But as to Connor's incredible incredible 1885 year, in which, as you point out, he led the league in hitting at .371 (Brouthers was second at .359), it was Brouthers who led the league in slugging (in the middle of a run of six straight titles), Brouthers who led the league in OPS, Brouthers out doubled and outhomered Connor, despite having many fewer at bats. In fact, whoever of the two was better in whatever category that year, there is no way in hell you can say Connor had an all time great year that year, since he was not even close to being head and shoulders above the rest. Connor was great, a real hall of famer, but her never dominated his league or era, and 1885, well, an MVP year? Sure, but all time great- no way.

[Bill Burgess]

I suspect some people confuse "the greatest" with "the most famous". Hope I'm wrong.

Bill

[SABR Steve]

Again, not all time dominant seasons, just very good ones. The 1880's?

Look at Tip O'Neill in 1887, he hit .435, won the triple crown ...

That's an adjusted batting average. His .492 is the official average. Or is that now .487?

[Imapotato]

Again, you gotta be kidding. You're seriously claiming Connor was the best ballplayer of the 19th c? That's just plain ridiculous. he never ever stood out from the pack. Not at all. Anson only had cumulative? Anson was one of the best two or three clutch hitters of all time, hands down. he was not a power hitter, but still led his lead in RBI eight times, all in a 12 year period in the same league as Connor (he was second or third the other four years), truly one of the best money players of all time. Connor had two stand out years in his whole career- he just played a lot of games, was consistent as absolute hell, and had more power than Anson, but the best of the 19th c?


Stovey????

Really, the .822 OPS Stovey vs. .883 OPS Connor

Connor ealso had 233 triples to Stovey's 174..triples were more imprtant back then

He had 441 doubles to Stovey's 347...doubles were important


and Anson clutch? Wanna give some figures there?

As for the played alot of games...that was ANson, of course you can easily lead the league in RBI that many times when you play as long as Anson


Look, Brouthers outslugged Connor, Stovey outpowered Conner, Hamilton outran Connor, Ewing outfielded Connor, Browning outhit Connor, and Anson outlived him.


So I guess we can look at Barry Bonds seasons and say he is not the best player of the last 20 years, because McGwire outslugged him, Andrew Jones outfielded him, Scott Posednik outran him...yada yada. What a concept in determining greatness you have there.


There is no juistification, I mean none whatsoever, that this guy was the best 19th c. player. Was he an innovator? Was he a titan? Was he a leader? no no and no. He was good, very good, but he was NOT great. He never even had one single truly dominant year, let alone defined an era like the players you claim he was better than.


He was the best in many different categories...thats how and with much less longevity then Cap Anson


Oh, PS, as to the homers: harry stovey had 1650 less ab than Connor and 16 fewer home runs. Stovey also scored 1492 runs in 1486 games played, with five homer titles and four triples titles during the same period that Connor was busy being the "best power hitter of the 19th c" although Connor just couldn't top the league in anything much strangely enough. Stovey also managed a couple of stolen base titles too.


And Stovey was inducted to the HOF when?

Oh P.S. he wasn't

Stovey had many HRs that rolled past a rope...Connor was the 1st player to clear the wall...read up on 19th century baseball...Stovey's HRs with his park were not as impressive as Connors, and he played with the AA...look at the players he dealt with the parks he played in before you spout off 'facts'

Look at Connors one year in the Player Association (that was another league in the 19th century) that is what he would have done yearly in the AA

Connors had 10 or more HRS 7 times a 19th century record...had a 3 HR game and bested the .300 mark in 12 seasons..in the NATIONAL LEAGUE, withj Brouthers, with Ewing, With ANson

On top of that he hit the first grand slam in league history

Stovey led the league in Ba..ONCE, RBI...ONCE and HRS 6 times...most playing in the INFERIOR American Association

In his time in the NL...Stovey hit 18 Hrs Mr. Expert

Don't ever compare him to Connors again, you make your ignorance of the 19th century shine like a beacon to a fishing boat


Connor was by no means the best power hitter in his league, let alone the best overall player of his era. He just plain wasn't, like Pete Rose was not the best player of the expansion era- just because you stick around and play a lot of games and are very very good, doesn't make you the best ever.


You need to research before you come at me again with a patronizing post again, Connor IS the power hitter of the 19th century...he was the best player in that time period...he played all but 1 year in the NL...the stronger league

You try and be high and mighty you get ripped with the same tactics and knocked off your cloud

[Imapotato]

Again, not all time dominant seasons, just very good ones. The 1880's?

Look at Tip O'Neill in 1887, he hit .435, won the triple crown, and led the league in doubles, triples, and homers, still the only man ever to do that in a season, lets not get started about the fact that he also set the then all time slugging pct record, as well as leading in all those really really important categories Connor was great at in 1890, like fewest AB per home run. One of the great seasons of all time. Tip O'Neill is not, however, the greatest player of the 19th c.




All American Association...the WEAK league

[Buzzaldrin]

You know, I wouldn't ordinarily write this, but you're a real jerk, you know that? Masking your incompetence and lack of knowledge by insulting me is not going to make you any friends or make you look older than twelve.

There is no one- I mean, no one, not one great manager or player of the 19th c. or 20th c. or even a big fan (other than you, of course), who claims that Connor is the best player of the 19th c. Not his contemporaries, not his immediate followers, nobody.

But I'll take your points in order- first of all, while the American Association was weaker than the NL, Dan Brouthers and Cap Anson were certainly not playing in it while they were dominating their days, they were teaching Connor what the game was all about. Brouthers' 1885 was at least as impressive as Connor's, and you claim it was Connor's best year, other than 1890, of course, which was with the Players League, which AS YOU YOURSELF POINT OUT IN YOUR POST wasn't the quality of the national league. So...when exactly was Connor so good?

As to Anson and clutch- Anson, without being a real power hitter, led his league in RBI eight times netween 1880 and 1892 (Connor's heyday and in the same league. You know, the NL? the one Brouthers, was tearing up with average and slugging?). Now, before you get started about all the reasons this happened and you don't feel Anson deserves any credit for this, realize that Lou Gehrig, generally credited by most as being the RBI king, played every game of every season for what is probably the most dominant and talented team in history, spent half that time batting right behind the all-time number two in On Base Percentage, and he managed five RBi titles. Anson had eight in the same time period as Gehrig. Where was power hitting Connor all those years with his pennant winning Giants?

Don't get me wrong here, RBI is partly a function of your teammates, and Anson played on some good teams, but not much better than Connor's, that's for sure, and Anson did this without power, by just plain being the money man. Nobody has ever brought them home like him- that's why he's STILL third all time in RBI. Sure he had two thousand something at bats more than Connor, he also hit a lot better than Connor for a lot longer. When the mound was moved back in 1893, Connor at ages 35 and 36, managed to hit .305 and .316, Anson hit .314 and .388 those years at 41 and 42. I sort of mention this because that incredible hitter Roger Connor managed to top .350 twice in his career, and all those crappy guys like Brouthers or Anson or Kelly just can't hold a candle to that greatness, right? Right?

And as to Stovey, no- he's not in the hall of fame, and it's a shame, but the more important question is why IS Connor in the hall. You know the answer right? When was he elected? 1976. What was on everyone's mind then? Hank Aaron and the record. See, when Babe broke all the records, nobody stopped to wonder who's record he had broken (and by the way, the professional record for homers before Ruth was held by Perry Werden, just most of it was minor league since he quit the majors and settled in Minneapolis and refused to leave again, although he was major league caliber. He twice topped 40 in a season in the 1890s, although he was playing in a shoebox, so it's with a monster grain of salt). Anyhow, I digress- nobody stopped to think whose record Ruth had broken until Aaron was on the trail and they figured out it was Connor. And THAT'S why he's in the hall, for a lousy 13 homers over Stovey in what 1500 more at bats or so? And longevity's was only Anson's strong suit? Right.

Was Connor a fabuloius fielder? no. Was he a great leader? No. Was he a solid every day player who could always be counted on to deliver? Yes.

Was he better than Dan Brouthers? Not by a long shot. And don't get me started on Delahanty- the real all rounder; could hit (.400 three times), hit for power (four homers in a a game, Connor wasn't up to that task), run (led the league in steals AFTER the change to the modern rules in 1898), could field, and had a great arm. I didn't mention him earlier because he played three seasons after 1900 and I didn't want to confuse your already addled brains, but if you feel the need to insult someone when you're incapable of winning an argument by logic, well...

why don't you write me again when you either grow up and can have an argument without crying, or get yourself a primer on 19th c. ball. I think we'll all be much happier then.

[Imapotato]

Keep sinking your ship with "made up facts"


You really are going to stick with RBI as a measuring stick of greatness

As for the tone, don't come in here as an arrogant, know it all with sarcastic and patronizing tones...with no real facts and back them up as they are

RMB, already gave you what Connor did...Bid McPhee was also late getting into the Hall...Cy Young wasn't one of the 1st elected...has no bearing on how great they were...really, your arguement os riddled with holes and you STILL spit condescending venom at me?

[Buzzaldrin]

What made up facts? You gotta be clearer.

Actually, I don't claim that the RBI is a measuring stick of greatness, however topping your league in ANY offensve category eight times is a mark of talent, especially a power category when you're not a power hitter.

As to the hall and how great they were- you, and you alone apparently, claim that Roger Connor was the greatest 19th c player of all. Why would it take forty years for a player that great to get some recognition? We all know that the Veteran's committee makes oversights and votes in people who were marginal at best, but any player with even a reasonable claim to being the best of the 19th c got in ages before Connor, and (this is the important bit) most of them were voted in by people who actually saw them play. Delahanty, Anson, Kelly, Ewing, Brouthers- all went in in the 30s and 40s. Why would these voters deliberately exclude Connor? Go to the historical articles thread and read the pages and pages of all time great players and managers of the first few decades of the 20th c choosing their all time times, not one of them- I mean NOT ONE SINGLE ONE- has Connor on their team, forget about being best of all, he doesn't even crack the lineup. Again, why would these people, many of whom saw Connor play against players who DO make their all time teams (Anson, Kelly, Delahanty, Duffy, etc.) deny him the greatness that you, well over 100 years after Connor retired, feel he deserves.

And what have you proved?

Well, your entire evidence for his greatness pretty much rests on his career numbers and career power stats, compared to others of his era as of 1900. However, you've already wrote that you don't consider the AA worthy, or the PL worthy, so I assume the UA and NA don't count either, so basically you're saying the greatest player of the 19th c is the greatest player in the NL between 1876 and 1900, unless you wanna backtrack.

Connor hit the most home runs- doesn't make him the best player or even best power hitter. Do you think Hank Aaron was a better power hitter than Babe Ruth? I don't think anyone'll go there, but hey, he hit more homers, right? So by your logic, he must be a better power hitter, and Aaron could even win batting titles too. And Sam Crawford had more triples than Cobb, so he must be a better player too, right?

But you seriously sabotage your case by pulling out Connor's BA. So he had the 20th highest lifetime average as of 1900? Wow, you mean he actually managed to have the 20th highest BA over a 30 year period? (and that's even including those inferior leagues, take them away and I'm sure he jumps up a few, but then he has the 14th (or whatever) best BA in one league over a 25 year period). Guess what- that is not all-time batting average caliber. Jason Kendall is the active number 20, I don't think people will have him at the top of their greats lists in 110 years. And before you point out that Barry Bonds, who is possibly the best power hitter of this era, has a lower career BA than that, realize that he also has 8 gold gloves in the outfield and 500 stolen bases. he's got several tools; something Connor can't really say.

But how come, when I throw out a name like Stovey, you say, hey wait a minute, look at their OPS, Connor was better, look at their BA, Connor was better, but when I point out that Brouthers' career BA and OPS were much higher than Connor's, you don't answer. Oh, and as to Stovey, you've pointed out that doubles and triples were really important- well, Brouthers our doubled Connor in 1000 fewer at bats, but Connor had 32 more homers and 28 triples, again in 1000 fewer at bats. Connor also had 97 runs scored and a whopping 23 RBI more than Brouthers, again in two full seasons worth of playing more than Brouthers.

But you claim Connor was the premiere power hitter of his era. Ok, let's just suppose that's true (even though I do not agree whatsoever, but for the sake of argument), let's say he was.

It does not follow that the best power hitter of his era is the best player, The best player should be more than a one trick pony, right? I mean, look at Brouthers- his career power totals are nearly as good as Connor, and his slugging and OPS+ dwarf his, but his batting average in the same league versus the same pitchers was 25 points higher. That's a lot, man.

Where are Connor's fielding skills, speed, and leadership? Please enlighten me, because the best player of his era will not be a first baseman with no other exceptional talents than power (and don't even think of calling his average exceptional).

Your arguments have a lot of vehemence behind them, but they have no substance. What's worse- you're basing all of your arguments on a bunch of stats from 120 years ago for a player that no one who saw him considered the greatest of his era, and you're deciding he actually was and that all the eye witnesses, baseball greats, and hall of fame voters who exclude him from their lists were all fools and just couldn't recognize his greatness.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Buzz,

What's up buddy. Stirrin' things up over on the ol' Jurassic boards huh? Stickin' with what you know best is all good, but you've got plenty in the reserve; venture over the history section and chime in every once in awhile. ;)

[SABR Steve]

Not to get into an argument about who is the greatest 19th century power hitter, there is this little note I wrote some years ago about Dan Brouthers:

In 1886, Brouthers clouted a homer off Sullivan's Tower, the cheap dime-a-seat monstrosity built beyond the right field slats at the South End Grounds in Boston. The impact sent several fans crashing to the ground, a display of strength that was talked about for years.

[ACrank]

Not sure that he is the top player, but after reading "Slide Kelly Slide" and discovering that he ended his professional baseball career Managing and playing for a team in Erie, i kind of have a soft spot for Mike "King" Kelly....

[Bill Burgess]

Not to get into an argument about who is the greatest 19th century power hitter, there is this little note I wrote some years ago about Dan Brouthers:

In 1886, Brouthers clouted a homer off Sullivan's Tower, the cheap dime-a-seat monstrosity built beyond the right field slats at the South End Grounds in Boston. The impact sent several fans crashing to the ground, a display of strength that was talked about for years.
I don't know, and pre-1900 players have always been one of my weak areas. But I do know that Brouthers/Delahanty have been mentioned often in terms of power.

Bill

[Buzzaldrin]

If we're talking about just power, we should also give a nod to Sam Thompson- he was the 19th c career leader in career ab/homer- 11 homers less than Connor in just about 2,000 fewer at bats. He was also the first man (if you don't count 1884 Chicago players, and we don't) to hit 20 homers in a season- and the only one pre 60'6" to do so (and the first 20 HR 20 steals man too). His single season RBI totals of 166 and 165, which would be staggering today, were even more staggering then , and were nearly 20 more than the nearest runners up until Ruth came along. He topped 20 triples 3 times in only 10 full seasons, and the last time he did it, he played only 99 games because of injury and reached 27 in only 437 AB- if you extrapolate that to the 600 AB he had reached the previous two seasons, it comes out to a season total of 37. That same partial season, he would most likely have bested his own RBI record, since he still managed to drive in 141 and nearly clipped the edge off of Duffy's triple crown. Imagine how his season would have been if healthy, since he hit .407 and missed the all time slugging record (which Duffy set by a mere seven points over him). Certainly one of the finest seasons ever if he'd stayed healthy, even considering that it was 1894.

He didn't get started until the old age of 26, so even for 19th c standards, he had a brief career, but he is forgotten all too often when talking about the greats of old, and certainly when talking about power.

[flash143817]

If we're talking about just power, we should also give a nod to Sam Thompson- he was the 19th c career leader in career ab/homer- 11 homers less than Connor in just about 2,000 fewer at bats. He was also the first man (if you don't count 1884 Chicago players, and we don't) to hit 20 homers in a season- and the only one pre 60'6" to do so (and the first 20 HR 20 steals man too). His single season RBI totals of 166 and 165, which would be staggering today, were even more staggering then , and were nearly 20 more than the nearest runners up until Ruth came along. He topped 20 triples 3 times in only 10 full seasons, and the last time he did it, he played only 99 games because of injury and reached 27 in only 437 AB- if you extrapolate that to the 600 AB he had reached the previous two seasons, it comes out to a season total of 37. That same partial season, he would most likely have bested his own RBI record, since he still managed to drive in 141 and nearly clipped the edge off of Duffy's triple crown. Imagine how his season would have been if healthy, since he hit .407 and missed the all time slugging record (which Duffy set by a mere seven points over him). Certainly one of the finest seasons ever if he'd stayed healthy, even considering that it was 1894.

He didn't get started until the old age of 26, so even for 19th c standards, he had a brief career, but he is forgotten all too often when talking about the greats of old, and certainly when talking about power.

Probably the main reason Thompson gets forgotten, besides the obvious 19th c. reason, is that he was probably the 3rd best OF on his own team even during his peak.

His mammoth RBI totals are probably at least partially attributable to Billy Hamilton, and to a lesser degree, Ed Delahanty. Hamilton was on base 355 times and stole 98 bases in 1894 when Thompson drove in 141 in 99 games. Hamilton scored 192 runs (!) that year.

Not trying to say Thompson wasn't a good player, because he was one of the best of his era, but he most certainly benefitted from playing with the game's first great leadoff hitter and arguably the best hitter of the 19th century.

[yest]

His mammoth RBI totals are probably at least partially attributable to Billy Hamilton, and to a lesser degree, Ed Delahanty. Hamilton was on base 355 times and stole 98 bases in 1894 when Thompson drove in 141 in 99 games. Hamilton scored 192 runs (!) that year.

Not trying to say Thompson wasn't a good player, because he was one of the best of his era, but he most certainly benefitted from playing with the game's first great leadoff hitter and arguably the best hitter of the 19th century.
they also bennfited from Sam Thompson behind them
he holds the top 3 season for rbis/game 1884 then 1885 then 1887 then Hack Wilson in 1930

his runs/game were also outragous .89 for his career (dehleanty was .87)

[baseballPAP]

And Hamilton's R/G was 1.06! There is the guy who is truly underrated...although once you pass the highly OVERrated Anson, there isn't much left but under-noticed stars.

[csh19792001]

And Hamilton's R/G was 1.06! There is the guy who is truly underrated...although once you pass the highly OVERrated Anson, there isn't much left but under-noticed stars.

As I said before, I go with Brouthers here, if for no other reason than the person I'm best friends with in this world just happens to be his great grandson, and who came to me to ask about his baseball legacy. He grew up in the house that Brouthers lived in his later years, in fact.

The family had one of Brouthers' bats growing up in the attic, and my friend was given a piece of postage with afirst day issue1939 Hall of Fame stamp on it- the envelope was signed by Babe Ruth and Nap Lajoie (with whom Brouthers was good friends). The bat, which he said more resembled a bedpost in size and shape, is now in Dan's exhibit at Cooperstown. He's trying to figure out whether or not to sell the memorabilia.

[Bill Burgess]

Does anyone know for sure the time period when taking the extra base was credited as an official stolen base? Knowing that would be helpful in evaluating Sliding Billy Hamilton.

Some have pointed out that his SB totals were padded with 'Taking Extra Bases' on other's hits.

Bill

[baseballPAP]

1887 for sure Bill...other than that I'm unsure. I believe that was the only time, but could be wrong....the elevated totals across the league that year would seem to back this up though.

[Buzzaldrin]

1887 for sure Bill...other than that I'm unsure. I believe that was the only time, but could be wrong....the elevated totals across the league that year would seem to back this up though.

You are mistaken. It was all the way up until 1897- 1898 was the first year of the modern stolen base rule, and the surprise leader, with the highest total of his entire career under both modern and former rules, was Big Ed Delahanty with 58.

As to Thompson: now, as anyone who has ever read posts by me on this board knows, I worship Billy Hamilton, but citing Hamilton as the reason for Thompson's staggering RBi totals is just plain wrong. Thompson's staggering record in 1887 is attributable to no one but Thompson.

[csh19792001]

Does anyone know for sure the time period when taking the extra base was credited as an official stolen base? Knowing that would be helpful in evaluating Sliding Billy Hamilton.

Some have pointed out that his SB totals were padded with 'Taking Extra Bases' on other's hits.

Bill

I've read a few different places that the stolen base rule was changed in 1898.

Here it is, not exactly spelled out, but still there. Prior to 1989, "stolen" bases subsumed extra bases taken (i.e., first to thrid on a single, passed ball, base reached via error).

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/excerpts/rules_chronology.stm

[mtortolero]

Pete Browning and Dave Orr in the AA does not deserves any love by you?

[Buzzaldrin]

Pete Browning and Dave Orr in the AA does not deserves any love by you?

Do a search throught the whole website for Browning and Orr and you'll see how much love they get. Carloads! Big Fat Dave Orr is one of my favorite players of all time, as well as one of the most talented, and without a doubt the most tragic. Never once in his whole career finished out of the top five in batting- just imagine how he would've hit if he hadn't had the stroke and stayed healthy 1893-1898. We're talking the possibility that he could've raised his lifetime average to Cobb's level, or at least Hornsby's.

Browning is written up all over here too- but the Louisville Slugger has our hearts, rest assured.

[Bill Burgess]

I've read a few different places that the stolen base rule was changed in 1898.

Here it is, not exactly spelled out, but still there. Prior to 1989, "stolen" bases subsumed extra bases taken (i.e., first to thrid on a single, passed ball, base reached via error).

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/excerpts/rules_chronology.stm

Thanks so much, Chris. So we are to understand that all SB totals prior to 1898 contained "Taking Extra Bases". Makes quite a difference in evaluating Billy Hamilton, Bill Lange, etc. Changes things. Thanks. I was meaning to ask about that so long ago, but it kept getting sidetracked.

Does anyone have any information that SB before 1898 were ever NOT including 'taking extra bases'?

Bill

[Buzzaldrin]

Thanks so much, Chris. So we are to understand that all SB totals prior to 1898 contained "Taking Extra Bases". Makes quite a difference in evaluating Billy Hamilton, Bill Lange, etc. Changes things. Thanks. I was meaning to ask about that so long ago, but it kept getting sidetracked.

Does anyone have any information that SB before 1898 were ever NOT including 'taking extra bases'?

Bill

I don't think it makes for a real re-evaluation of players. If you look at the totals, they don't drop for the steal artists, just the non finesse speedsters- Hamilton, for example, went from 66 SB to 54 from 1897 to 1898, not a real drop at all, considering his totals 1894-1896 were all over 80- it was just his knees starting to go.

Lange, on the other hand, suffered an enormous drop- from 73 to 22.

Guys like John McGraw and George Van Haltren saw no change whatsoever to their seasonal and average totals. Then again, McGraw was a singles hitter and probably wasn't trying to stretch things out too often. Then again Willie Keeler had a mammoth drop that year, even though he won the batting title (with only ten extra base hits)

Gene de Montreville and Ed Delanhanty actually saw an increase in their totals, with Delahanty having the highest total of his career and leading the league in 1898.

My point is that I wouldn't disregard earlier totals, because for many (and I feel, most) players they're still mostly accurate.

[Buzzaldrin]

Sorry to double post, but I've been thinking about the steals thing all day, and how much of a difference the rule change meant to SB totals. The taking of extra bases on a hit, when counted as stolen bases, would (I suppose) be primarily a function of teammates' hitting ability. Like, if nobody batting behind you hits well, your steals are likely to be your own product, while- if you have Dan Brouthers and Hugh Duffy batting behind you, as Tom Brown did in 1891. Then again, Brown had his best year at the plate, hitting .321 with true power (21 triples- no chance of a steal there, in general) and walking loads. Hard to say how many of his steals were purely personal (Duffy had 85 that year too).

I think it's easier to judge a season like Hugh Nicol's record year. Although the Reds finished second, they were not a very good hitting team. Nicol himself only hit .215, but he walked 86 times, so he had plenty of opportunity to run, but I'm willing to bet that well over 100 of his steals were not extra bases on long balls from other teammates.

Likewise Hamilton's 1889 Kansas City year. The team wasn't much good at the bat in general, but more importantly, they had very little power, finishing 7th in slugging in an eight team league. Hamilton was just a daring base thief.

However- how can we find out for certain? Does anyone have access to all the boxscores to judge? I'd like to know what percentage of steals were real steals, because I don't have it in me to just disregard great speedster seasons because of different definitions.

[The Kid]

Negro Leagues/Pre-1900 players have always been among my weakest areas.

I'm right there with ya, Bill.

[Bill Burgess]

1898
.A stolen base is credited to the base runner when he reaches a base he attempts to steal without the aid of batting or fielding errors or a hit by the batter. [10.08]
------------------------------------------------------------

Wait a minute. This does not include Taking Extra Bases on someone else's hit.

[SABR Steve]

Do a search throught the whole website for Browning and Orr and you'll see how much love they get. Carloads! Big Fat Dave Orr is one of my favorite players of all time, as well as one of the most talented, and without a doubt the most tragic. Never once in his whole career finished out of the top five in batting- just imagine how he would've hit if he hadn't had the stroke and stayed healthy 1893-1898. We're talking the possibility that he could've raised his lifetime average to Cobb's level, or at least Hornsby's.

Browning is written up all over here too- but the Louisville Slugger has our hearts, rest assured.

I think both should be in the Hall

[Buzzaldrin]

1898
.A stolen base is credited to the base runner when he reaches a base he attempts to steal without the aid of batting or fielding errors or a hit by the batter. [10.08]
------------------------------------------------------------

Wait a minute. This does not include Taking Extra Bases on someone else's hit.


That's the "big" rule change. Until that point if the runner advanced more bases than the batter did on a hit, the runner was credited with a steal. However, when you think about it, there aren't too many of these bogus opportunities. You can get them on a single, of course, provided you score from second or scoot to third from first (or score), but you'd have to score from first on a double, and you can't get one on a triple or homer. However- think of the era we're talking about (pre-1898), if you hit a ball deep in the outfield, it was going for a triple or a homer (very much unlike today). Outfielders played way in compared to all later eras and you just weren't that likely to get extra bases on medium hits or short gap doubles.

If you look, actually, you'll find that there was a bigger change in steal totals when they moved the mound back then there was when they created the modern rule. Makes sense, I guess- if the mound's ten feet closer to home, it's further away from the bases. But no one stole 100 after the mound was moved, which they had virtually every year before that, and only Hamilton topped 90. Once Hamilton's knees started to go, mcGraw kept injuring himself, and guys like Tom Brown and Bil Lange retired, the running 90s ended. That had more to do with it then the rule change.

[The Kid]

I'd have to say Willie Keeler. A great fielder, speedy runner, and an absolutly great hitter.

[timetripper]

It has to be Dan Brouthers. Everywhere he went championships followed. He was the Ted Williams of the ninteeth century, but he was stronger and a better all around player. My favorite player is Roger Connor. He was a genuine gentle giant.

[SABR Steve]

This is a great thread. Those who have an interest in 19th Century baseball are some of the most knowledgeable simply because we have to do our research to form our opinions. There are disagreements to be sure, and I still doubt that anyone today has a perfect handle on how they caught or pitched or hit. But it is fun to read our little pieces of facts that we have uncovered.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see Jimmy Collins name anywhere. He was a fine hitter, but it was his fielding that got him into the Hall. From all accounts he revolutionized the manner of play around the hot corner: the first modern third baseman.

[Bill Burgess]

Baseball Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players.shtml)

One of the important factors is selecting those who are more 19th Century, than 20th Century.

These selections should have played at least 5 seasons before 1900, such as Jimmy Collins, Willie Keeler, Cy Young, George Davis, Jimmy McAleer, Bobby Lowe, John McGraw, Clark Griffith, etc.

But just because a player played 5 seasons in 1890's, doesn't automatically make them a true 19th Century player, if more of their career is after 1900.

Cy Young, Willie Keeler, Collins, Davis split the 1900 dividing line almost in two. I'd say that a player had to begin their career before 1893 to be a true 19th Century player.

[Vaako]

No Ned Williamson on this poll :(


No Roger Connor? He was the best slugger ever until Babe Ruth, and I think he held the home run record until Ruth broke it. Why no Roger Connor in your list?


Ned Williamson had 27 homers in 1884...wasn't beaten til Babe came along.
Granted his field was only 180, 300, and 196 feet long. Left, center, and right respectively.

[hellborn]

No Ned Williamson on this poll :(

Ned Williamson had 27 homers in 1884...wasn't beaten til Babe came along.
Granted his field was only 180, 300, and 196 feet long. Left, center, and right respectively.

I think that was the only year that shots over the fence at that park counted as homers...they were normally ground rule doubles. If not for that, that record probably wouldn't have stood for any length of time, and a bunch of players from that team would have been high on the single season HR list before Babe.

[Baseball Guru]

I think that was the only year that shots over the fence at that park counted as homers...they were normally ground rule doubles. If not for that, that record probably wouldn't have stood for any length of time, and a bunch of players from that team would have been high on the single season HR list before Babe.

Exactly, the White Stockings decided to make the entire outfield fence home run territory.

The top four home run hitters in the National League of 1884 were all White Stockings; Ned Williamson happened to come out on top with 27, all but two in Chicago.

[Baseball Guru]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see Jimmy Collins name anywhere. He was a fine hitter, but it was his fielding that got him into the Hall. From all accounts he revolutionized the manner of play around the hot corner: the first modern third baseman.

I would think he's not on the poll because he played most of his games after 1900... I didn't make the poll but that's what I would assume...

[adio]

i would go for king kelly.

[Dave Cash]

Can anyone name the players in this photo, your help will certainly be appreciated.

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/730/abcdoi0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Bill Burgess]

This is not the best place to ask about that photo. Here is a much better place, and one that might actually get you a good response. The Brooklyn Dodgers Forum.

http://baseball-fever.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Good luck.

Bill Burgess

[Dave Cash]

thank you very much, i'm sorry

[sreeja]

I think king kelly is the best 19th centuary player.

[The_Leff_Fielder]

I'm surprised John Clarkson isn't an option. Are you only listing position players?

[Bill Burgess]

I'm surprised John Clarkson isn't an option. Are you only listing position players?
Yes, that is correct.

Here is the survey/poll for the pitchers.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=69135

[brett]

Thanks so much, Chris. So we are to understand that all SB totals prior to 1898 contained "Taking Extra Bases". Makes quite a difference in evaluating Billy Hamilton, Bill Lange, etc. Changes things. Thanks. I was meaning to ask about that so long ago, but it kept getting sidetracked.

Does anyone have any information that SB before 1898 were ever NOT including 'taking extra bases'?

Bill


Bill, I read a long time ago that stolen bases included many types of extra bases, such as taking extra bases in certain situations, but I was not under the impression that every time, or most times a player went from first to third on a single he got a steal. It had to be out of the ordinary.

In fact this is pretty obvious because if they gave it all the time, everyone would have 30-40 "steals" on record.

I have rated Hamilton lower as a result. Since the best baserunners today tend to take about 20-25 "less likely" bases a season, I would guess that someone like Hamilton would probably be picking up 20-25 "steals" this way per season. It could be more because they ran more.

[brett]

1898
.A stolen base is credited to the base runner when he reaches a base he attempts to steal without the aid of batting or fielding errors or a hit by the batter. [10.08]
------------------------------------------------------------

Wait a minute. This does not include Taking Extra Bases on someone else's hit.

Yes, this change was made in 1898

[brett]

If you look, actually, you'll find that there was a bigger change in steal totals when they moved the mound back then there was when they created the modern rule. Makes sense, I guess- if the mound's ten feet closer to home, it's further away from the bases.

I think you are saying that it is harder to hold runner's on first when you are pitching from 50 feet?

[TyrusRaymondCobb]

Who do you think the best 19th century player is? I'd say King Kelly. He was a great fielder, a great hitter, and he could play any position. This poll is only about position players. Even though many of the players in the poll were also good pitchers, that doesn't count for this poll.

The question for this poll is like this: The year is 1900, and you have access to all modern stats. You are making a list of 20 greatest players. Who do you rank #1?

If you voted other in the poll, be sure to tell us who you think is the best.

Bill Lange's ML stats:
CHC 1893-1899
811 Games
3195 AB
689 R
1055 H
133 2B
79 3B
40 HR
578 RBI
399 SB
.330 BA

[Rube Waddell]

Althought Anson is part of the reason blacks were banned from the "organized baseball", in my mind no one should dispute he is still the best ballplayer the 19th century had to offer.

He started in the National Association as a teenager, he had a very long, very succesfull carrer, led one of the most productive and powerful team in history for decades, first to hit 3000 hits, was a hell of a run producer...

If longevity means anything, he's the best of the pre-1900's era.

[Bill Burgess]

Would anyone else care to offer their Top 15 Nineteenth Century Players list?

[RuthMayBond]

Career value, I don't mix position players ...
Anson
Connor
Ed Delahanty
Burkett (if he counts)
Brouthers
Hamilton
Van Haltren
McPhee
O'Rourke
Beckley (if he counts)
King Kelly

... and pitchers
Nichols
Keefe
Clarkson
Rusie
Radbourn
Jim McCormick
Mullane
Galvin
Spalding should maybe go in there somewhere but he is too unique
I can't wait to see who I forgot

[Bill Burgess]

Career value, I don't mix position players ...
Anson
Connor
Ed Delahanty
Burkett (if he counts)
Brouthers
Hamilton
Van Haltren
McPhee
O'Rourke
Beckley (if he counts)
King Kelly

... and pitchers
Nichols
Keefe
Clarkson
Rusie
Radbourn
Jim McCormick
Mullane
Galvin
Spalding should maybe go in there somewhere but he is too unique
I can't wait to see who I forgot
Hope they're in order. What? No Buck Ewing? I'm quite sad.

[jjpm74]

Would anyone else care to offer their Top 15 Nineteenth Century Players list?

This is a loose ranking:

Players:

Dan Brouthers
Cap Anson
Roger Connor
Jesse Burkett
Buck Ewing
John Ward
Ross Barnes
Bid McPhee
Paul Hines
Jim O'Rourke
Charlie Bennett
King Kelly
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Jack Glasscock

Pitchers:

Amos Rusie
Kid Nichols
Charlie Radbourne
Tim Keefe
John Clarkson
Tommy Bond
Bob Caruthers
Al Spalding
Larry Corcoran
Jim McCormick
Tony Mullane
Pud Galvin
George Zettlein
Silver King
Mickey Welch

[RuthMayBond]

Hope they're in order. What? No Buck Ewing? I'm quite sad.
They're in order, and your boy Ewing needs more PT

[Chris Jones]

Baseball prior to 1900...magnificent, romantic, poetic... and at the same time... savage, brutal, beautiful. Anson, Kelly, McGraw and the rest...

Thanks to you all for keeping the game and its players alive and vital.

-Chris

[Bill Burgess]

They're in order, and your boy Ewing needs more PT
You could at least platoon him, couldn't you. He was able to be plugged into multiple positions.

[Chris Jones]

Dear Bill and Friends:

I realize he was no earth-shattering hurler, and the development of the curveball would have come about sooner or later, but how does "Candy"
Cummings rate among you exberts?

Regards,

Chris

[Bill Burgess]

I realize he was no earth-shattering hurler, and the development of the curve ball would have come about sooner or later, but how does "Candy"
Cummings rate among you experts?
I don't rank him. He was just a pioneer.

[Brad Harris]

Has there ever been a top 19C list series of threads, by position?