Your Top 10 19th Century Players:

[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.