Best COMPLETE MLB player ever

[bucsparrothead]

I reflect upon the career of one Hans 'Honus' Wagner, who played for 20 years, and was considered the BEST player in the game before Ruth(because of Cobb's ugly nature). I was staggered by the sheer amazing quality of his play during the DEAD BALL era. Some great examples:

STOLEN BASES:
1904, 53
1905, 57
1907, 61!!!!
1908, 53

These were his HIGHS, and his total was 722 fo his career. AVERAGE wise this comes to 36 a season; and TWO years he played 61 and 74 games, 1897 and 1917.

BATTING AVERAGE:

From 1897 to 1913, his average never dropped below .299. That's 16 years of great hitting! The highs were .381 in 1900 and .355 in 1903.

RBI's:

1,732 RBI's in 20 years, highs of 126 in 1901 and 113 in 1899.

These numbers are beaten out by the intense and dramatic Ty Cobb, but if you look at his frame and those huge arms and hands, be amazed at the quickness and grace he exhibited. I'm sure that by the numbers Ty Cobb has Honus beaten out, but as far as considering numbers AND the person, the Flying Dutchman was truly a GREAT complete player.

I MUST add that by leaving him off the All-Century Team by baseball fans was truly a shame. If ONLY they knew how great he truly was.


'...to the wall, GONE AND THE PIRATES WIN!' -Maz and the ORIGINAL home run WS blast!

[bluezebra]

>I reflect upon the career of one Hans 'Honus' Wagner, who
>played for 20 years, and was considered the BEST player in
>the game before Ruth(because of Cobb's ugly nature). I was
>staggered by the sheer amazing quality of his play during
>the DEAD BALL era. Some great examples:
>
>STOLEN BASES:
>1904, 53
>1905, 57
>1907, 61!!!!
>1908, 53
>
>These were his HIGHS, and his total was 722 fo his career.
>AVERAGE wise this comes to 36 a season; and TWO years he
>played 61 and 74 games, 1897 and 1917.
>
>BATTING AVERAGE:
>
>From 1897 to 1913, his average never dropped below .299.
>That's 16 years of great hitting! The highs were .381 in
>1900 and .355 in 1903.
>
>RBI's:
>
>1,732 RBI's in 20 years, highs of 126 in 1901 and 113 in
>1899.
>
>These numbers are beaten out by the intense and dramatic Ty
>Cobb, but if you look at his frame and those huge arms and
>hands, be amazed at the quickness and grace he exhibited.
>I'm sure that by the numbers Ty Cobb has Honus beaten out,
>but as far as considering numbers AND the person, the Flying
>Dutchman was truly a GREAT complete player.
>
>I MUST add that by leaving him off the All-Century Team by
>baseball fans was truly a shame. If ONLY they knew how great
>he truly was.
>
>
>'...to the wall, GONE AND THE PIRATES WIN!' -Maz and the
>ORIGINAL home run WS blast!

His real name was John Peter Wagner. The "Honus" is a German version of John. He was a gentle man, but Cobb learned not to push him too far. In the 1909 Series, Cobb was on first, and in his inimitable fashion, tried to intimidate Wagner by calling him the filthiest names. When Cobb broke for second on a steal attempt, Wagner took the throw and shoved it in Cobb's face, almost knocking out his teeth. He's my All-Time shortstop.

Bob

[bucsparrothead]

I put Hans because many ads featuring him used HANS WAGNER in them (I have several examples). The story you replied with is a great one, and is often clouded in myth and truth. The stitches/cut lip never happened, but the other parts were corroborated by Cobb AND Wagner. ODD how Cobb really did respect and like Wagner in reality!

'...to the wall, GONE AND THE PIRATES WIN!' -Maz and the ORIGINAL home run WS blast!

[Freakshow]

Actually, the case for Wagner's greatness is even stronger than the one you present. I'll just mention a couple things.

There is a growing consensus that Wagner was a greater player than Cobb. In the New Historical Baseball Abstract, Wagner is rated #2 all-time behind only Ruth. Honus' 1908 season is rated the greatest season ever.

In the Baseball Survivor project at this link:

http://www.concentric.net/~Jkubatko/baseballsurvivor/

Wagner is one of the nine surviving players and seems destined to finish ahead of Cobb.

There are really only four players you can argue as being greater than Wagner: Babe Ruth, because of his pitching ability; Ted Williams because of his time lost to war service; Willie Mays, because he had all the tools like Wagner but played against tougher competition; and Walter Johnson, because it's harder to compare a pitcher with position players.

Dan

[bucsparrothead]

I have never contested the fact that Babe Ruth was indeed the best player EVER, or even that Honus was better than Ty Cobb because I can't go against what Cobb did in his career. I fotound the stolen bases with his huge frame (not the height, but still BIG) amazing, as well as the good relationship the two ACTUALLY had despite the story of '09, as well as a lot of other things.

In reference to the Survivor site, it was VERY disturbing to me that Barry Bonds is on the list of 9, for personal reasons. He did nothing for us when we needed him the most, and really gave Jim Leyland(a TERRIFIC guy) a hard time. I guess I just want someone who isn't greedy and self-absorbed on my team, and when you compare him to Clemente or Kiner or Wagner, he couldn't fill ANYTHING of theirs.

'...to the wall, GONE AND THE PIRATES WIN!' -Maz and the ORIGINAL home run WS blast!

[LouGehrig]

Willie Mays played against tougher competition than Wagner? Try on Ted Kazanski of the Phillies. He was tough. How about Seth Morehead. He was a really tough lefty for Willie. And Vito Valentinetti gave Willie fits. So did Warren Hacker, Jim Davis, and Dick Littlefield.

Why is Williams greater because he lost 5 years to the wars? Williams was greater because Williams was greater, and I am not sure Williams was greater than Wagner.

If Walter Johnson were greater (you are right. It is unfair to compare pitchers. But then why is Ruth better because he was also a pitcher?) than Wagner, how about Mathewson, Koufax, etc.

[VELCROHIDE]

In these kinds of posts when you're asked to pick who you thought was the best complete ballplayer in the Major Leagues it could be anyone. A personal favorite or someone you'd read about. Me personally, every time I read about a different ballplayer there's something about them that I admire. I haven't seen the most complete ballplayer. Someone who could pitch, hit and catch grounders like cats pounce on mice or catch flies the way a spider's web nets the winged insects. I don't know how Bob Lemon was with the glove and never heard too much bragging about the Babe's glove. Every thing else but not the glove.

Maybe this player was in the Mexican or South American Leagues or Negro Leagues and the "major" leagues didn't think enough of that person's ethnicity to allow him to play in the "big leagues"?

[bucsparrothead]

I can't change history or WHO played in MLB from the 1880's to 1947, but I CAN tell you who did and all about Wagner...BUT...

Satchel Paige didn't play..if he did, I am DEFINITELY sure he would have been considered to be the best pitcher ever, and maybe better than Babe Ruth himself. ANY man who can have the kind of seasons he had at his age when he DID get to play in the major leagues is a great indcation that he was REALLY gypped to put it VERY nicely. Point very well taken...thanks for bringing that up!

'...to the wall, GONE AND THE PIRATES WIN!' -Maz and the ORIGINAL home run WS blast!

[BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT]

BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT

Babe Ruth! Period!!!

[qual101]

Ruth was such a DOMINATING hitter (especially compared with others of his day) -- and he was above average as a fielder, perhaps even an excellent fielder in his younger days (before 1925). Even if he never pitched an INNING he would still be the best ballplayer of all time. That Ruth was also a very good pitcher is interesting, but I don't think his pitching added any value to his best seasons: 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1927 or 1928.

But Honus Wagner was probably the best "skill-position" player of all time. If fielding and base-running as weighed equal in importance to hitting, there might have a case for Wagner as "best all-around" player ever.

[researcher]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-02 AT 04:21 AM (EDT)]If swating flies in the dougout were considered, then Joe Fabitz may
have been considered the greatest of all time!

Wagner is still my 1st string SS..but his #'s don't exceed all in-
fielders of his era:

Wagner...173 OBS......Lajoie...171 OBS
Wagner...+13 fa/lea....Lajoie....+14 fa/lea

While at it...Cobb +239 OBS..everybody looks for excuses to try to
devalue Ty Cobb, because of his personality...that's because he was a
hard playing ballplayer, and an inspiring on the field winner, who
didn't, like most of the weak people, give up, he fought hard to win,
which is the only thing that counts, all the time.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

To answer the question, if the choice is Ruth or Wagner, it should be Wagner. He is the more well rounded player, all around. Ruth's ability to do something at the plate would make him my choice if I had to pick one for my team. There are only 5 modern time(post 1900) hitters more likely to get a hit if you go by lifetime batting average. Ruth is 6th on that list.There was only one hitter with a lifetime OBP than Ruth, Ted Williams, and that is not by much. There is only one hitter with a high number of at bats who had a higher walk percentage than Ruth. There is only one hitter in the history of the game that has a lower AB/HR ratio than Ruth, Mark McGwire. Ruth's was over a longer period, 22 seasons, Mac for 16 seasons. No one in the history of the game has a percentage of extra base hits, per hit than Ruth. Ruth was all these men in one body. Don't get me started on Babe Ruth. Honus, whats to be said, one of the greatest.

[researcher]

We are not talking about a beauty contest, who runs the fastest,
who runs backwards the fastest, who can catch the ball with one eye
closed the best...

What differance does it make, who is a more complete player; in this
game only WINS count, not how good you look.

Who will win you the most games over and above however many he may
lose you in the field.

If anybody has paid attention, the article came out in the last two
weeks, about why the Yankees went after Giambi.....OB% #1 reason

The GM's readly acknowlede today that OB% is where it starts, and SA
is where it ends. It took them long enough.

Speed, stolen bases are virtually discounted as least likely to be
of much value.....It has been understood that anything less than 50-
60 SB's/yr are worth very little to the disrupting of the game, thus
not of much value to your chance of winning the 92+ games you are
aiming for.

All the BS about Aaron and his speed making him equal to Ted Williams
iun value to a team is rediculas; it like saying 2+2=5.

If a man can "club you the death day in and day out, that's what wins games.

Wagner, my #1 SS of those retired, no way compares in offense to Ruth,
Williams, Gehrig, Foxx, Hornsby, Cobb.

And I tend to discount any stats that include the illegial ball being used for the last 6-7 years.

[cubbieinexile]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-02 AT 01:40 AM (EDT)]Why do you discount the stats produce in the last 6 to 7 years and yet count the stats for players in the 20's and 30's? When in fact we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the ball was changed back then. Furthermore there is no rule about how springy or tightly wound a ball must be. In fact here is the official rule about what a baseball shall be in MLB:

1.09 The ball shall be a sphere formed by yarn wound around a small core of cork, rubber or similar material, covered with two stripes of white horsehide or cowhide, tightly stitched together. It shall weigh not less than five nor more than 5 1/4 ounces avoirdupois and measure not less than nine nor more than 9 1/4 inches in circumference.

As long as a ball meets these criterias it is not illegal. So how is the modern ball illegal?

[DonnieG]

For me I cant claim who is the best overall baseball player. I have never seen the like of Ruth, Mays, Williams, Cobb, Wagner, ever play a game of baseball. For the time I have watching baseball it has been Griffey, Sosa, and Bonds who are the best, all though stat wise though dont compare to the Old Timers.

Baseball now I think is easier for a hitter. It seems like every new rule they make favors the hitter. The ball is now harder then it was back in the day, baseball fields are much shorter then they use to be and pitching now is harder than it use to be.

I take nothing away from the greats of old I have never seen them play, I only hear stories of how great they were.

What happens to a player like Shoeless Joe Jackson who for the time you was playing was one of the best, but because of what happened people dont even mention his name. Who says he wouldnt have been the best.

[researcher]

Apparantly you were not on this forum when someone, gave us a detailed
description of the scientific description of the ball, and its being
illegal.

This was a 3-4 paragraph detailed account.

Its been 5 yrs since they got all the announcers to stop talking about
the "hot" ball; they used to laugh about it...but now 5 yrs later,
for some reason you don't understand it.

I tried, but I couldn't find the old post...I'll ask for the author
to repeat it.

[cubbieinexile]

I read the article and according to baseballs own official rules they are not breaking the rules. In fact in one part of the article they say the ball is similar to the ball used in 1930. So how can this ball be illegal when it is not breaking any rules?

[researcher]

The article says that specs allow for 15 pct syntheic material, plus
or minus 3 pct....and the ball has 21.6 pct.

And why does the Selig duck the issue?

[DonnieG]

I never said the ball was illegal all I said was that it is harder than it was and the ballparks are smaller, I dont think you can compare players now with players of old

[cubbieinexile]

Whose specs were they? Were they the ball companies? Were they MLB's specs. In the official rule book it says nothing about how much synthetic material should be used. The article also does not state what effect the synthetic material has on the ball. It might very well have no effect on the ball. They also only tested one ball from this era. Why? If the specs allow for a plus or minus of 3% then making of the ball is probably not that exact of a science. The study should have looked at more baseballs than just one.
Secondly Selig has not ducked the issue. Practically every year MLB releases studies comparing baseballs so they are not ducking the issue. He didn't return a phone call to an editor of a magazine, so what. I'm sure this happens all the time, it doesn't mean he was ducking it.

The ball cannot be illegal if it does not break MLB rules. At least for now I don't think it is. Unless somebody can find some rulebook that expressly governs the ball, I will think the ball is legal.

But this is all besides the point really. I am not concerned about today's ball. That is not what I asked. I wanted to know why you don't factor in the ball when looking at players from the 20's and 30's. You're always knocking todays player because of the ball but you never knock those players. In fact in the article you mentioned they even make note of how lively the 1930 ball was.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-02 AT 11:22 PM (EDT)]I don't know about others, but I do not discount stats of the last 6 or 7 years. However, I do take the ball into consideration when comparing stats put up since the mid 1990s to the stats in past seasons, home runs in particular.What happened in 1920 was no secret. At that time Spalding supplied balls to MLB. In their own words they said a better grade of yarn was available after the war ended and the ball was more tightly wound, the result of improvements in making up the ball. What bothers some fans today is that Bud Selig refuses to even discuss the matter of the use of synthetic windings in the ball. Don't you think if he returned all those phone calls to the editors of Popular Science that it would put him in a more favorable position with the fans. He could even tell lies as he has in the past but at least address the issue. I have a problem with the fact that the commissioner is also an owner, talk about a conflict of interest. The last thing commissioner/owner Bud Selig wants to do is put a damper on the home run derby that started in the mid 1990s. More home runs= more fans= more money in the owners pockets. Is it a coincidence that the home run derby started a year or two after the fans were angered after MLB went on strike in 1994.
The specs you give (1.09) are correct, so why did researchers at two different labs find synthetic windings around the core. At this time Rawlings now supplies MLB with the balls. I went right to Rawling's own website and this is how they describe the windings used on todays ball." A series of three wool and one cotton winding around the core". No where does it say synthetic windings are used or allowed.
No one can say for sure if the ball is juiced but researcers at two labs found balls in the latter years of the 1990s to have more synthetic windings then balls of as recent as the late 1980s and early 1990s. The home run increase from 1996 to the present compared to the early 1990s is off the chart. I don't say it's only the ball, but some expansion, smaller parks and one of the biggest reasons that tiny strike zone that was shaved a good 4 inches off the top in the 1990s.
Here is just a small sample of what happened from 1996 to the present.I left out the short seasons of 1994-95
Number of hitters hitting 40+ HRs
1990-2
1991-2
1992-2
1993-5
1994- strike season
1995- short season
1996-17
1997-12
One look at 1996 tells you something in the game changed. In 4 seasons, 1990-91-92-93 a total of 11 hitters hit 40+ HRs. Then in only 1 season, 17 hitters hit 40+ HRs.
One more indication of a big change in the game in 1996.
Number of teams in BOTH leagues hitting 200 home runs in 1990-91-92-93, only one team. You 4 seasons BOTH leagues, thats a total of 8 seasons and only one time did a team hit 200 HRs.
In only one league,1 season the AL in 1996, 7 teams hit 200 HRs.
All these stats are from the 1990s. we are not comparing stats to years ago, so the bigger stronger theory does not apply here. Hard to believe all of baseball got that much bigger and stronger in one decade. The answer is it was not the players getting bigger and stronger it was the small parks, expansion, the strike zone and maybe the ball.

[cubbieinexile]

I basically believe what you just described. I believe the parks (most notably Coors Field where 6 of the 19 40+ homer players were created from), the strike zone, the bat (smaller handles and better woods), the training regime, the medicine, the new hitting philosophy, the expansion, and yes the ball have added to the increased in scoring.

You have to remember that the philosophy of the offense changed in the 90's. The one run ball game tactics were getting phased out during much of the 90's. What with the expansion and new ball parks most teams found it easier to aim for the fences than to bunt a player over. Pitching got diluted and the Umps were not helping matters.

[researcher]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-02 AT 05:40 AM (EDT)]Of course some parks have something to do with the HR's, so does the
strike zone...and so does the ball!

MAJOR LEAGUE HR%

2000....0340
1999....0331
1998....0303
1997....0299
1996....0316
1995....0295
1994....0300
1993....0260....8 yr ave .0355 (app) a 44.89% increase over 1985-'92

1992....0213
1991....0237
1990....0232
1989....0216
1988....0223
1987....0309
1986....0266
1985....0252....8 yr ave .0245 (app)

1980....0214
1975....0205
1970....0259
1965....0245
1960....0253
1955....0266
1950....0244....these ave .0241 (app)

One might think that the HR % was app the same from 1950 thru 1992.

Then they changed the ball among other things in the game; and its
safe to assume that there are spec's on the ball; which the article
alluded to: 15 pct + or - 3pct synthetic material. And the ball tested
out at 21.6 pct.

Every announcer from Tim McCarver to Joe Morgan, were amazed at how far these balls started flying out of the park, even on miss-hits.

Anybody who ever played the game, and had their eyes open saw this; and it took a while before they had the announcers stop harping on
it.

Lower seams, wound tighter, and an illegial amount of syntehtic material, all combined has the balls traveling farther, How much I
don't know...How much is illegal I don't know...but Popular Science
would seem to be creditable enough to take their word on the spec's
as they know them..over someone who doesn't have them in front of him.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Nothing to debate on your last paragraph. I agree, the philosopy of the hitters has also contributed to the home run derby that began in the early 1990s. Hitters so not shorten up on the bat when they have two strikes, most still go for the long ball. Then we still have to factor in expansion, smaller parks, Maple wood now used in bats, the strike zone and maybe the ball. The one that really bothers me is the strike zone. Expansion, smaller parks, different wood and the philosophy of the hitter are all acceptable changes in the game. For the umps to just violate the rule book and shave the strike zone on their own, not through the rules committee is too much. There have been variations in the strike zone more than a few times over the years, but always through the rules committee. Since when are pitches at the belt or a bit higher called a ball.In the last two seasons the umps have made a feeble attempt to raise the strike zone to what is callled for in the rule book, but still have a ways to go.
Not only does the hitter have to be concerned with a smaller zone to focus in on but the small strike zone increases the the probability of the hitter getting in a favorable "hitters count".
The league batting average when starting out with a 1-0 count is almost 30 points higher than when starting out with a 0-1 count.
There is another article on the ball that appeared in Discover Magazine, Vol.22 No 5 (May 2001). Any one interested in taking a look at this article can obtain it on the internet. If you are familiar with the search engine YAHOO you can get this article.
Go to YAHOO and type in the following name: Paul Dubin Company, then click on search and it will take you to the Discovery article on the ball. Paul Dubin Company of Centerville, Mass. supplies MLB with the yarn used in the balls.

[cubbieinexile]

Thanks for the article. I now understand what impact the fibers have on a baseball. But again in this article they only tested one ball from 2000, and in fact it said in a preliminary test it came out to 21.6%. Which too me means the scientists themselves know that they have to do more tests on it to be exact. Cutting open one ball and finding 21.6% doesn't mean that all balls are illegal. If they had cut open 100 balls from 2000 and they were all 21.6% then I would say yes we have a problem. But I don't think we can safely say there is a problem until research is done on more baseballs. Finally Rawlings started making the balls for MLB because Spalding felt they could no longer make money on the deal at the price MLB wanted. Rawlings I believe to keep the costs down are using the waste of carpet manufacturers to make there baseball. In this article they state that finding all wool carpet waste is extremely hard to do. So all of this could very well just be evolution and the rulebook hasn't caught up to reality. It has happened before in baseball.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

>Thanks for the article. I now understand what impact the
>fibers have on a baseball. But again in this article they
>only tested one ball from 2000, and in fact it said in a
>preliminary test it came out to 21.6%. Which too me means
>the scientists themselves know that they have to do more
>tests on it to be exact. Cutting open one ball and finding
>21.6% doesn't mean that all balls are illegal. If they had
>cut open 100 balls from 2000 and they were all 21.6% then I
>would say yes we have a problem. But I don't think we can
>safely say there is a problem until research is done on more
>baseballs. Finally Rawlings started making the balls for
>MLB because Spalding felt they could no longer make money on
>the deal at the price MLB wanted. Rawlings I believe to
>keep the costs down are using the waste of carpet
>manufacturers to make there baseball. In this article they
>state that finding all wool carpet waste is extremely hard
>to do. So all of this could very well just be evolution and
>the rulebook hasn't caught up to reality. It has happened
>before in baseball.

No argument there, your correct in saying there has not been enough testing to prove anything conclusive. There is another theory floating around, that states the ball being used in recent years has more uniform quality due to improvements in the manufaturing of the ball. Some pitchers who have been in the game for some years stated that years ago all the balls were a bit different. Just by going though and feeling a couple of dozen balls, they could actually feel some covers were looser than others and some balls had stitchings lower than others. These same pitchers say in recent years the balls all feel about the same. As you and I seem to agree, there are other factors that changed in the game in, say the last ten seasons that also account for the rise in home runs.
I do have the email address of all those at the two different labs that did the testing and will contact them in the near future. I will post any new info I come up with.

[The Kid]

The most complete player ever has to be Willie Mays. Over 3000 hits, over 600 homers, blazing runner, amazing fielder.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Honus Wagner. No doubt in my mind

[Mr. Red]

I first thought of Wagner and Mantle.

[CTaka]

If the title of this thread is best COMPETE MLB player (not to be confused with greatest player since offense is weighted higher than baserunning or fielding), then my vote would be for Honus Wagner.

I've always held that Mays is the most complete player I've ever seen. But throughout history, I'd have to take Wagner over Mays as a "complete" player.

I would define "completeness" as having skill in all the necessary parts or components of baseball. Mays was a superlative CF, a below average 1B, and only played 2 games at SS (without any chances) and 1 game at 3B. Wagner was a superlative SS, but also played 372 games in the OF (with a fielding percentage 19 points above league average), 248 games at 1B (with a league average fielding percentage), 209 games at 3B (with a fielding percentage 15 points above league average), and 57 games at 2B (with a fielding percentage 8 points above league average). He also pitched 2 games.

Mays and Wagner were both tremendous offensive players, baserunners, fielders, and had outstanding throwing arms. But I would view playing the infield and outfield as "components" of baseball, and Wagner's versatility gives him the edge here. I would also consider pitching to be a component of baseball, and while 2 games is hardly a significant sample size, Wagner pitched 2 more games than Mays did. So my vote for "most complete" goes to Wagner.

I believe Mays could have done very well at a middle infield position in his youth if he were given the chance. But I am basing my response to this post based solely on what they did accomplish, not on what they "might" have accomplished. I also think Wagner would have made a fine catcher if given the chance - but he never caught and thus I give him no extra credit for what he "might have done" behind the dish.

[nerfan]

Willie Mays. Honus played against easier competition- by far. I could hit a ball against some of those early 1900's pitchers- but NOT Walter Johnson... (I can hit a 80-MPH flat fastball)

[CTaka]

Willie Mays. Honus played against easier competition- by far. I could hit a ball against some of those early 1900's pitchers- but NOT Walter Johnson... (I can hit a 80-MPH flat fastball)

No question that Mays played against tougher competition, but I don't see how that makes him a more complete player than Honus. It is a valid argument in terms of who was greater, where postion scarcity (which could favor Wagner) and LQ adjustments (which would favor Mays) can come into play, but I don't see level of competition as being a deciding factor in a discussion of completeness.