Player Ranking

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I know absoultley nothing about baseball in the 19th century. However, I have a question. How do you guys go about ranking players from such an early era? Is it purely by statistics, or do you also take into account stories, news reports, eye-witness accounts etc..? I don't really understand how it is possible to argue over which player was best, when no one saw them play (who is now around to talk about it).

[CTaka]

As for myself, I tend to rank them the same as I would for any players that I haven't seen (starting watching in the 60's). It is largely based on their stats, particularly how they did compared to their peers, along with reports and accounts of their play by people who saw them. The bigger weight goes to their stats adjusted for their era.

Rules were often times different in the 19th century, so I look at how they did against their peers who were all playing under the same conditions and rules.

[Brian McKenna]

I don't really understand how it is possible to argue over which player was best, when no one saw them play (who is now around to talk about it).

Same could be said for Joe DiMaggio who retired in 1951. How many people are alive who saw him play often and were old enough to soak it in? You would have to be at least 70, residing a NYC at the time who broke away to see plenty of ballgames at Yankee Stadium.

[Buzzaldrin]

It can be trickier though. For example, Buck Ewing was regarded by many, of not most of his peers in his generation and for several generations afterward as the best player ever. However, his stats aren't nearly as impressive as a Brouthers or a Hamilton. Same goes (although not to the same degree) with King Kelly. I base things on stats, of course, but for the older game a lot has to go with personal testimony (and not just from hometown papers) and stats in relation to peers, and not just stats adjusted to modern levels.

The great shame is that I don't really have any idea how to compare a guy like Asa Brainard- who the term pitching ace originally referred to- and who was by all accounts head and shoulders better than anyone in the land in the 1860's. By the time he hit the NA he was way over the hill, so I don't have any numbers whatsoever to even loosely compare him to later faves of mine like Clarkson, Caruthers, or Nichols. Would be nice to know just how good he really was.

[flash143817]

It can be trickier though. For example, Buck Ewing was regarded by many, of not most of his peers in his generation and for several generations afterward as the best player ever. However, his stats aren't nearly as impressive as a Brouthers or a Hamilton. Same goes (although not to the same degree) with King Kelly. I base things on stats, of course, but for the older game a lot has to go with personal testimony (and not just from hometown papers) and stats in relation to peers, and not just stats adjusted to modern levels.

The great shame is that I don't really have any idea how to compare a guy like Asa Brainard- who the term pitching ace originally referred to- and who was by all accounts head and shoulders better than anyone in the land in the 1860's. By the time he hit the NA he was way over the hill, so I don't have any numbers whatsoever to even loosely compare him to later faves of mine like Clarkson, Caruthers, or Nichols. Would be nice to know just how good he really was.

Not just a guy like Brainard, but other guys like Jim Creighton. By all accounts he was already miles better than anyone else by the time he was 21 and then he tragically dies.

[CTaka]

It can be trickier though. For example, Buck Ewing was regarded by many, of not most of his peers in his generation and for several generations afterward as the best player ever. However, his stats aren't nearly as impressive as a Brouthers or a Hamilton.


In Ewing's case, I think it is because he played catcher; nearly half his games were behind the dish. While that doesn't seem like a lot by today's standards, it was a different game back then. Brouthers had a career OPS+ 40 points higher than Ewing. Gehrig had a career OPS+ 43 points higher than Bill Terry. Given that Gehrig and Terry played the same position in the same era, its pretty easy to tab Lou as the superior player. But if Terry were a standout defensive catcher with the most powerful throwing arm of his time, as well as a superior base stealer than Lou, I wouldn't be surprised if some observers might rate him higher than the Iron Horse.

But I understand your point that much of Ewing's greatness isn't easily discernible through stats alone. I get the sense that people who saw him play were so amazed by his throwing arm that it positively impacted their overall evaluation of his play.