Your Top 10 19th Century Players:

[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

[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

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.