View Poll Results: Who do you think is the best 19th century player?

Voters
93. You may not vote on this poll
  • Cap Anson

    36 38.71%
  • King Kelly

    11 11.83%
  • Buck Ewing

    6 6.45%
  • Sam Thompson

    1 1.08%
  • Ed Delahanty

    12 12.90%
  • George Gore

    0 0%
  • Mike Donlin

    0 0%
  • Charlie Bennett

    0 0%
  • Ross Barnes

    2 2.15%
  • George Wright

    0 0%
  • Roger Connor

    1 1.08%
  • John McGraw

    3 3.23%
  • Billy Hamilton

    2 2.15%
  • Willie Keeler

    2 2.15%
  • Hughie Jennings

    0 0%
  • Bid McPhee

    0 0%
  • Herman Long

    0 0%
  • Bill Dahlen

    1 1.08%
  • Jesse Burkett

    0 0%
  • Paul Hines

    0 0%
  • Joe Start

    0 0%
  • George Van Haltren

    0 0%
  • Bob Caruthers

    0 0%
  • Hugh Duffy

    1 1.08%
  • Other

    5 5.38%
  • Dan Brouthers

    10 10.75%
  • Bill Lange

    0 0%
  • Pete Browning

    0 0%
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 165

Thread: Your Top 10 19th Century Players:

  1. #141
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,218
    1. Dan Brouthers
    2. Cap Anson
    3. Ed Delahanty
    4. Buck Ewing
    5. Billy Hamilton
    6. Roger Connor
    7. Jesse Burkett
    8. Jake Beckley
    9. Bid McPhee
    10. King Kelly
    11. Jim O'Rourke
    12. Ross Barnes
    13. Joe Start
    14. Sam Thompson
    15. Willie Keeler
    Last edited by bluesky5; 04-04-2012 at 08:26 AM.
    "I go all out. And I'm going to bring that to the table every day, in good times and bad times." - Eric Byrnes

    "...far too many people want to retroactively apply today's standards to yesterday's players, as if they played the game under the same assumptions and just heedlessly and obdurately plowed on in their own groove." - Los Bravos

  2. #142
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Harris View Post
    Has there ever been a top 19C list series of threads, by position?
    I do my annual "greatest player by position" in the history forum. I wouldn't mind doing one exclusively for 19th century.
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  3. #143
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrus4189Cobb View Post
    I do my annual "greatest player by position" in the history forum. I wouldn't mind doing one exclusively for 19th century.
    I'd do it. You'd probably have to wait longer for tangible results each round.
    "I go all out. And I'm going to bring that to the table every day, in good times and bad times." - Eric Byrnes

    "...far too many people want to retroactively apply today's standards to yesterday's players, as if they played the game under the same assumptions and just heedlessly and obdurately plowed on in their own groove." - Los Bravos

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sunny Sweden
    Posts
    1,854
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesky5 View Post
    1. Cap Anson
    2. Ed Delahanty
    3. Buck Ewing
    5. Billy Hamilton
    6. Roger Connor
    7. Dan Brouthers
    8. Jesse Burkett
    9. Jimmy Collins
    10. Bid McPhee
    11. King Kelly
    12. Jim O'Rourke
    13. Ross Barnes
    14. Joe Start
    15. Sam Thompson
    Just nit-picking, but I absolutely fail to see how Roger Connor can possibly be called a better player than Dan Brouthers.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzaldrin View Post
    Just nit-picking, but I absolutely fail to see how Roger Connor can possibly be called a better player than Dan Brouthers.
    Maybe defense? I have enough issues rating guys on defense. When it comes to 19c players, forget it.
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  6. #146
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzaldrin View Post
    Just nit-picking, but I absolutely fail to see how Roger Connor can possibly be called a better player than Dan Brouthers.
    Defense. Based mostly on the fact that Connor payed 3B as well. It may not be the best way to evaluate it, but it's an inference I made. If you have any information that eludes to Brouthers being better I'd be happy to hear it. I love 19th c. ball and don't hear enough.
    "I go all out. And I'm going to bring that to the table every day, in good times and bad times." - Eric Byrnes

    "...far too many people want to retroactively apply today's standards to yesterday's players, as if they played the game under the same assumptions and just heedlessly and obdurately plowed on in their own groove." - Los Bravos

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sunny Sweden
    Posts
    1,854
    From what I gather, both Connor and Brouthers played old school first base, i.e., standing on the bag and being a big target for throws. Charlie Comiskey (and I suppose others but haven't heard who they may be) pioneered the more modern style of play playing off the bag. Connor's bio at SABR says "over time he also developed into an adept-fielding first baseman". Okay. I don't read anything about Brouthers being specially great in the field, but I also don't find anything about him being any sort of liability either, and Connor's possible advantage in the field just can't be enough to overcome the massive difference in batting between the two- and it is massive.

    Brouthers is the 19th c leader in OPS+ and is 8th all time. In 13 full seasons he led the league in OPS+ 8 times, batting five times (in three different leagues), OBP five times, and slugging seven times. He achieved the very cool feat of leading the league in slugging every year from 1881-1886, then changing tack and leading the league in offensive WAR every year from 1887-1892. His lifetime .342 is 9th lifetime, and unlike other old time stars such as Delahanty or Hamilton, he didn't achieve that by running up loads of big years in the hitter friendly 1890s, but rather in the dead ball 1880s. He did all of this playing in the same leagues as Connor, who, good as he was, doesn't come remotely close to Brouthers' feats with the bat.

    Don't get me wrong, Connor was a great hitter, no question, a sure fire hall of famer justly celebrated for both his longevity and his power skills- but there is, again, a large difference in their htting abilities. And even as to power- Brouthers had 1,000 fewer career at bats than Connor, but he still hit more doubles, and in both homers and triple per at bat they're vitually identical (Brouthers has a slight edge in triples/AB, Connor in homers/AB, but when I say slight, I mean it's basically a wash). That's one thing we forget about Connor- he may have been the 19th c homerun king in absolute terms, but there were several players who out homered him per at bat (in that respect Sam Thompson is ther clear 19th c home run king).

    I suppose it's a similar argument (on a different scale) to Ruth/Aaron. Aaron was a great player, a great hitter, with amazing longevity and he hit more homeruns than Ruth. But he wasn't as good as Babe Ruth (and yes, I know that you can make cases with them for different leagues, integration, etc., but just assume for the sake of argument that they played in the same leagues at the same time against the same pitching).

    Roger Connor was a great hitter; Dan Brouthers was one of the best hitters of all time. That, I believe, more than compensates for any small defensive differences between the two.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzaldrin View Post
    From what I gather, both Connor and Brouthers played old school first base, i.e., standing on the bag and being a big target for throws. Charlie Comiskey (and I suppose others but haven't heard who they may be) pioneered the more modern style of play playing off the bag. Connor's bio at SABR says "over time he also developed into an adept-fielding first baseman". Okay. I don't read anything about Brouthers being specially great in the field, but I also don't find anything about him being any sort of liability either, and Connor's possible advantage in the field just can't be enough to overcome the massive difference in batting between the two- and it is massive.

    Brouthers is the 19th c leader in OPS+ and is 8th all time. In 13 full seasons he led the league in OPS+ 8 times, batting five times (in three different leagues), OBP five times, and slugging seven times. He achieved the very cool feat of leading the league in slugging every year from 1881-1886, then changing tack and leading the league in offensive WAR every year from 1887-1892. His lifetime .342 is 9th lifetime, and unlike other old time stars such as Delahanty or Hamilton, he didn't achieve that by running up loads of big years in the hitter friendly 1890s, but rather in the dead ball 1880s. He did all of this playing in the same leagues as Connor, who, good as he was, doesn't come remotely close to Brouthers' feats with the bat.

    Don't get me wrong, Connor was a great hitter, no question, a sure fire hall of famer justly celebrated for both his longevity and his power skills- but there is, again, a large difference in their htting abilities. And even as to power- Brouthers had 1,000 fewer career at bats than Connor, but he still hit more doubles, and in both homers and triple per at bat they're vitually identical (Brouthers has a slight edge in triples/AB, Connor in homers/AB, but when I say slight, I mean it's basically a wash). That's one thing we forget about Connor- he may have been the 19th c homerun king in absolute terms, but there were several players who out homered him per at bat (in that respect Sam Thompson is ther clear 19th c home run king).

    I suppose it's a similar argument (on a different scale) to Ruth/Aaron. Aaron was a great player, a great hitter, with amazing longevity and he hit more homeruns than Ruth. But he wasn't as good as Babe Ruth (and yes, I know that you can make cases with them for different leagues, integration, etc., but just assume for the sake of argument that they played in the same leagues at the same time against the same pitching).

    Roger Connor was a great hitter; Dan Brouthers was one of the best hitters of all time. That, I believe, more than compensates for any small defensive differences between the two.
    You have me convinced.
    "I go all out. And I'm going to bring that to the table every day, in good times and bad times." - Eric Byrnes

    "...far too many people want to retroactively apply today's standards to yesterday's players, as if they played the game under the same assumptions and just heedlessly and obdurately plowed on in their own groove." - Los Bravos

  9. #149
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Jones View Post
    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
    Well put and seconded!
    "I go all out. And I'm going to bring that to the table every day, in good times and bad times." - Eric Byrnes

    "...far too many people want to retroactively apply today's standards to yesterday's players, as if they played the game under the same assumptions and just heedlessly and obdurately plowed on in their own groove." - Los Bravos

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    6,069
    1. Dan Brouthers
    2. Ed Delahanty
    3. Cap Anson
    4. Roger Connor
    5. Billy Hamilton
    6. Jesse Burkett
    7. Willie Keeler
    8. Buck Ewing
    9. Pete Browning
    10. Sam Thompson
    11. King Kelly
    12. Paul Hines
    13. John McGraw
    14. Bill Dahlen
    15. Goerge Van Haltren
    16. Harry Stovey
    17. Hugh Duffy
    18. Jimmy Ryan
    19. Bid McPhee
    20. Ross Barnes
    "(Shoeless Joe Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning." -- Connie Mack

    "I have the ultimate respect for Whitesox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Redsox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country."--Jim Caple, ESPN (Jan. 12, 2011)

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    6,069
    My top ten 19th century pitchers

    1. Cy Young
    2. Kid Nichols
    3. Tim Keefe
    4. John Clarkson
    5. Old Hoss Radbourne
    6. Amos Rusie
    7. Mickey Welch
    8. Al Spalding
    9. Pud Galvin
    10. Tony Mullane

    11. Jim McCormick
    "(Shoeless Joe Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning." -- Connie Mack

    "I have the ultimate respect for Whitesox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Redsox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country."--Jim Caple, ESPN (Jan. 12, 2011)

  12. #152
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,218
    1. Anson
    2. Glasscock
    3. Delahanty
    4. Ewing
    5. Hamilton
    6. Brouthers
    7. O'Rourke
    8. Ward
    9. Davis
    10. Dahlen
    "I go all out. And I'm going to bring that to the table every day, in good times and bad times." - Eric Byrnes

    "...far too many people want to retroactively apply today's standards to yesterday's players, as if they played the game under the same assumptions and just heedlessly and obdurately plowed on in their own groove." - Los Bravos

  13. #153
    1. Cap Anson
    2. Dan Brouthers
    3. Billy Hamilton
    4. Ed Delahanty
    5. George Davis
    6. Roger Connor
    7. Buck Ewing
    8. King Kelly
    9. Bill Dahlen
    10. Jack Glasscock
    "Age is a question of mind over matter--if you don't mind, it doesn't matter."
    -Satchel Paige

  14. #154
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,218
    Quote Originally Posted by rsuriyop View Post
    1. Cap Anson
    2. Dan Brouthers
    3. Billy Hamilton
    4. Ed Delahanty
    5. George Davis
    6. Roger Connor
    7. Buck Ewing
    8. King Kelly
    9. Bill Dahlen
    10. Jack Glasscock
    Why Bad Bill over Pebbly Jack?
    "I go all out. And I'm going to bring that to the table every day, in good times and bad times." - Eric Byrnes

    "...far too many people want to retroactively apply today's standards to yesterday's players, as if they played the game under the same assumptions and just heedlessly and obdurately plowed on in their own groove." - Los Bravos

  15. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesky5 View Post
    Why Bad Bill over Pebbly Jack?

    I gave Dahlen a slight edge due to career length and also playing a bit later when the game became slightly more competitive. But I could still see a case for Glasscock. Being the best SS of the 1880's and without a fielding glove ought to give him a lot of credit.
    "Age is a question of mind over matter--if you don't mind, it doesn't matter."
    -Satchel Paige

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesky5 View Post
    1. Anson
    2. Glasscock
    3. Delahanty
    4. Ewing
    5. Hamilton
    6. Brouthers
    7. O'Rourke
    8. Ward
    9. Davis
    10. Dahlen
    FWIW, among primarily position players:
    WAR (1876-1899)
    Code:
    1	Cap Anson 84.4	
    2	Roger Connor 84.2
    3	Dan Brouthers 78.4
    4	John Ward  64.1
    5	Jack Glasscock 61.4	
    6	Billy Hamilton 56.5	
    7	Bid McPhee 52.7	
    8	Ed Delahanty 52	
    9	Buck Ewing 	47.7
    10	Harry Stovey 44.6	
    11	Jim O'Rourke 44.5	
    12	Sam Thompson 44.2	
    13	King Kelly  43.2
    14	Elmer Smith  42.9	
    15	George Davis  42.5
    Win Shares: (1876-1899)
    Code:
    Ward 401.6
    Anson 389.8
    Connor 382.2
    Brouthers 369.5
    O'Rourke 319.3
    McPhee 313.4
    Hamilton 298.4
    Van Haltren 293.9
    Kelley 287.9
    Stovey 285.9

  17. #157
    I voted for Anson back in 2005 when this poll was started.

    And here's the entire book "A Ball Player's Career uploaded, for free!! And it's FASINATING, and one hell of a read!!!!


    First baseball (or, for that matter, sports biography in history!) Enjoy!

  18. #158
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --That cuts at least 5 years off Anson's career. There really wasn't a nickels worth of difference between the NA of 1875 and the NL of 1876. I see no reason to disregard the NA even with MLB chooses to do so.

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by leecemark View Post
    --There really wasn't a nickels worth of difference between the NA of 1875 and the NL of 1876.
    You sure about that, Mark?

  20. #160
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --Pretty sure, yes. They shifted things administratively some and it was probably necessary to build a league that was going to grow and last. The game on the field didn't really change though. It was almost all the same players out there. Of course neither was exactly a great league and you have to start counting somewhere. I just think 1871 is as good a place as 1876.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •