Your 19th Century All-Time, All-Star Team

[538280]

C-Buck Ewing, Charlie Bennett
1B-Roger Connor, Dan Brouthers
2B-Bid McPhee, Cupid Childs
3B-Deacon White, Lave Cross
SS-Bill Dahlen, George Davis (or Glasscock if he played too much 20th century)
LF-Ed Delahanty, Harry Stovey
CF-Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines
RF-Sam Thompson, Mike Tiernan

P-Kid Nichols, Amos Rusie, Tim Keefe, John Clarkson, Charlie Radbourn

[538280]

Bill, I realize you have both Brouthers and Anson ahead of Connor. Might want to rethink that. Anson had great longevity, but much of that was against unbelievably questionable compeition in the NA, and much of that was his decline phase when he was hardly much of a player at all and was probably playing himself for no good reason. While they were both active, Connor absolutely dominated Anson. I have demonstrated before that every year when both were active and played a full season, with the exception of two seasons at the very beginning and end of Connor's career, Connor was rated the better player by every statistical system. Connor had a great bat AND glove (Anson lacked the latter), and unlike Anson was also a great teammate.

Brouthers was a slightly better hitter than Connor, but Connor was just as good at his peak, lasted longer, and has a large fielding advantage.

[ElHalo]

Anson had great longevity, but much of that was against unbelievably questionable compeition in the NA, and much of that was his decline phase when he was hardly much of a player at all and was probably playing himself for no good reason.

I too have Connor and Brouthers well ahead of Anson, but it's really not fair to say he was hardly much of a player at all in his later years. After age 40, he had four seasons with at least 90 RBI and a .300 average (the RBI totals are impressive seeing as how he topped 110 games exactly once in that span, at 122 in 1895).

[ElHalo]

And why don't more people have Hughie Jennings here? He had one of the greatest five year peaks of anybody ever, scoring runs and stealing bases like a madman, while playing some of the best SS defense ever to grace a diamond. And he even had decent longevity, managing to stick around long enough to play 17 seasons.

[Buzzaldrin]

Brouthers was a slightly better hitter than Connor, but Connor was just as good at his peak, lasted longer, and has a large fielding advantage.

There is no justification whatsoever for this statement. It is just plain not true. Dan Brouthers was one of the best hitters of ALL-TIME; Roger Connor was one of the best hitters of his era. There is a big difference between the two. Playing against the same pitchers in the same leagues, Brouthers consistently put up numbers no one would match until Cobb and Ruth came along. Connor did not come close.

I don't even understand the "lasted longer" part really, since they each played the same number of seasons; it just took Brouthers an extra year to become a regular and he had some injuries at the end of his career- I assume you mean that part of your statement because these factors combined to give Brouthers about 1,000 AB fewer than Connor.

And what did he do better than Connor? Just about everything. For starters, he still has the 9th highest lifetime BA, and only ONCE in his whole career (in seasons of over 200 AB) hit as low as Connor's CAREER mark. He scored less than 100 runs fewer than Connor and drove in 26 fewer- again in over 1,000 fewer AB. He outdoubled Connor (not just per AB but in real terms), he hit more triples per AB for his career, won five batting titles, seven slugging titles, led the league in doubles, triples, homers, RBI, runs- adjusted OPS+ EIGHT times- heck, he's SEVENTH lifetime in that department, ahead of Cobb, Jackson, Foxx, Mays, Aaron, DiMaggio, etc. Dan Brouthers made the Hall of Fame in 1945 because he was the best hitter of his day, and well deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the Williams', Cobb's, and Ruth's of the world.

The only batting category Connor tops Brouthers in is homers- and I'm judging this as per AB, by the way- Connor has him there, but not by much. Either way, it's a moot point because Sam Thompson beats the pants off of both of them in that department (do the math), clearly leading the pack in pre-1900 long long long ball. Even Connor's best seasons do not put him on a temporary par with Brouthers- look at 1885, Connor's lone batting title year. Connor also led the league in on base percentage and total bases. That same year, Brouthers was second in those three categories, but himself led the league in slugging, extra base hits, and OPS+.

I cannot emphasize it enough, Connor was simply not the hitter Big Dan was. NOBODY was. Heck, even the little things, Connor had the fortune to play for New York; Brouthers played the first half of his career with Buffalo- meaning that he got to face Welch and Keefe all year and Connor never had to.

Connor WAS a better fielder than Brouthers. No one's arguing that. However, Brouthers more than held his own against the pack, and did manage to lead the league in fielding once- to Connor's four times. They each led the league in errors twice, but still there's no question who was better in the field.

However, the difference in fielding in no way compensates for the difference at the bat, and Big Dan was just way better than all comers.

[Baseball Guru]

And why don't more people have Hughie Jennings here? He had one of the greatest five year peaks of anybody ever, scoring runs and stealing bases like a madman, while playing some of the best SS defense ever to grace a diamond. And he even had decent longevity, managing to stick around long enough to play 17 seasons.

I agree.. Thats why I have him on my list...

There is no justification whatsoever for this statement. It is just plain not true. Dan Brouthers was one of the best hitters of ALL-TIME; Roger Connor was one of the best hitters of his era. There is a big difference between the two. Playing against the same pitchers in the same leagues, Brouthers consistently put up numbers no one would match until Cobb and Ruth came along. Connor did not come close.

Yeah, I would tend to agree with that... Brouthers really was a fantastic player and one of the best of the 19th century....

[timetripper]

19th Century All-Star Team

I found an old picture of a group of ball players, and I believe that group would comprise my ninteenth century team.
John Ward
Willie Keeler
John Clarkson
Cap Anson
Roger Connor
Cy Young
Dan Brouthers
Tip O'neill
Billy Hamilton
I think that is about as good a it gets. Not only were they all great ball players but they lead teams to championships. My most underrated ninteenth century ballplayers are Deacon White and George Gore. How many championship teams did each of them help lead? My most overrated ninteenth century ball players Buck Ewing and Mike Kelly.

[Bill Burgess]

Guys,

It is perfectly acceptable to use players who played into the 1900's, as long as they played a significant portion of their careers in the 1800's.

Such players would include Cy Young, Jimmy Collins, George Davis, Willie Keeler, John McGraw, Clark Griffith, Bobby Lowe.

But Honus Wagner/Nap Lajoie? You know better than that. Please stop trying to get away with stuff you know you shouldn't. Please? It's just historically inappropriate.

Could the offenders go back and make your appropriate revisions/adjustments?
----------------------------------------------
Not necessary to use them in the traditional positions in which they originally played. You may platoon, if you like. But should have played at least 4-5 seasons before 1900, such as Jimmy Collins, Willie Keeler, Cy Young, George Davis, Jimmy McAleer, Bobby Lowe, John McGraw, Clark Griffith, etc.

Should not use players with only 2-3 yrs., such as Nap Lajoie, Rube Waddell, Sam Crawford.
---------------------------------
Would any of you consider adding these great teams to your posts in "Members Official Opinions"? These are valid opinions, and deserve to go into your official files. http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=38137

[Buzzaldrin]

I found an old picture of a group of ball players, and I believe that group would comprise my ninteenth century team.
John Ward
Willie Keeler
John Clarkson
Cap Anson
Roger Connor
Cy Young
Dan Brouthers
Tip O'neill
Billy Hamilton
I think that is about as good a it gets. Not only were they all great ball players but they lead teams to championships. My most underrated ninteenth century ballplayers are Deacon White and George Gore. How many championship teams did each of them help lead? My most overrated ninteenth century ball players Buck Ewing and Mike Kelly.

Read some comtemporary literature or even modern newspaper collections from way back when like "A Tale of Four Cities" (a fabulous book about the 1889 pennant races available from Amazon) and I think you will see how immensely valuable Buck Ewing was in so many ways it's almost scary. I believe he's actually quite under-rated and completely understand how he got so much support for the Hall in 1936, and do NOT understand why people overlook him so much today compared to other 19th c stars.. I do, however, agree with you about Kelly- especially after he opened his bar he really squandered his talent.

And any 19th c team that has Hamilton and O'Neill on it is alright with me! My heroes (as most of you know by now).

[Bill Burgess]

Read some comtemporary literature or even modern newspaper collections from way back when like "A Tale of Four Cities" (a fabulous book about the 1889 pennant races available from Amazon) and I think you will see how immensely valuable Buck Ewing was in so many ways it's almost scary. I believe he's actually quite under-rated and completely understand how he got so much support for the Hall in 1936, and do NOT understand why people overlook him so much today compared to other 19th c stars..

Thank you, Buzz. Here's my standard piece on the great Buck.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=297815&postcount=76

Bill

[The Kid]

My All Time 19th Century Team:

C:
Buck Ewing, King Kelly

1B:
Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, Roger Connors

2B:
Ross Barnes, Bid McPhee

3B:
Jimmy Collins, John McGraw

SS
Hughie Jennings, George Davis

OF
Willie Keeler, Ed Delehanty, Billy Hamilton, Jesse Burkett

Pitchers:
Cy Young, Kid Nichols, Pud Galvin, Al Spalding, Tim Keefe, Jim Whitney, Amos Russie, Clark Griffith, Monte Ward, Ed Morris

Honorable Mentions:

1B Charles Comiskey, SS Herman Long, OF Dummy Hoy, 3B Deacon White, OF Pete Browning, OF Sam Thompson, OF Jim O'Rourke.

My 19th Century All Star Team in today's present form of 32 all-stars if the Honorable Mentions are counted.

[achester99]

My all time 19th century team

Boy was I excited to find this! I love wasting my time on stuff like this and I've already made my all-time Team of the Decade for each decade of baseball. For the 19th century I decided to just make one team, which fits right in with what you guys are doing! So here is my team.

Note: I ONLY used data for games played between 1871-1899. Anything done from 1900 onward has no impact. (Also, teams listed are for the player's primary team during the 19th century; red denotes HOF.)

Lineup:
1. Billy Hamilton, CF, Philadelphia Phillies.
860 SB and a .349 AVG.
2. Hughie Jennings, SS, Baltimore Orioles.
.323 AVG and 820 runs in his first eight seasons.
3. Dan Brouthers, 1B, Buffalo Bisons.
.344 AVG, .944 OPS, 106 HR, he's the third most valuable hitter of the century after Thompson and Cap.
4. Sam Thompson, RF, Philadelphia Phillies.
127 HR (second most of the century), .331 AVG.
5. Hugh Duffy, LF, Boston Beaneaters.
Actually spent more time at CF, 102 HR, 548 SB, .326 AVG
6. George Davis, 3B, New York Giants.
.313 AVG, one of only two HOF third basemen from the era.
7. Buck Ewing, C, New York Giants.
Leads catchers in RBI (883), R (1129), SB (354), AVG (.303), OPS (.807).
8. Bid McPhee, 2B, Cincinnati Reds.
The only HOF 2B, he leads in RBI (1067), R (1678), and SB (568), even if his rates aren't as good as Cupid Childs' (who only played ten years).

Bench:
Ed Delahanty, OF, Philadelphia Phillies. .345 AVG and .915 OPS.
Roger Connor, 1B, New York Giants. Century-leading 138 HR and a .317 AVG.
Cap Anson, 1B, Chicago Cubs. His incredibly long career means he leads in nearly all stats, including R (1996) and RBI (2076), along with a .333 AVG.
Joe Kelley, OF, Baltimore Orioles. .340 AVG and .925 OPS.
Bill Joyce, 3B, New York Giants. A short career keeps him out of the HOF, but in only seven years he pounded 70 HR and had a position-best .902 OPS.
King Kelley, OF/C, Chicago Cubs. He is behind a few others in the outfield, including George Van Haltre, Jesse Burkett, and Jimmy Ryan, but we need a backup catcher and his numbers are better than any other, including a .308 AVG and 368 steals in only seven seasons in which the stat was kept.

Pitchers
Tim Keefe, New York Giants
John Clarkson, Boston Braves
Charley Radbourn, Providence Grays
Kid Nichols, Boston Braves
Al Spalding, Boston Braves. He can also play CF or 1B, having averaged 55 RBI and 70 R a season to go with his .313 AVG.
Cy Young, Cleveland Spiders
John Ward, New York Giants. Ward actually played more games at shortstop and second than as a pitcher, which means he is also this team's backup middle infielder, for which he is qualified with 1408 runs, 867 RBI, and 540 steals (a stat which wasn't even kept for almost half his career!).
Pud Galvin, Buffalo Bisons. Galvin was a workhorse, leading baseball in wins and losses during the century because of 14 full seasons of work.
Amos Rusie, New York Giants
Jim McCormick, Cleveland Spiders
Bob Caruthers, St. Louis Cardinals. I give Caruthers the last spot on the team over other qualified pitchers because of his versatility. As an outfielder he scored over 500 runs, over 150 steals, and an OPS of almost .800.

[HDH]

Just think, all these pitchers are submarine and side armed hurlers.

[Second Base Coach]

Here are some early players of note, keeping with the spirit of a 40 man roster (plus Cap Anson to run the team) and avoiding some players who had careers which spilled over into the 20th Century to a large degree like Larry Lajoie. I have no rule or cutoff for this, so my squad may not be consistent from player to player on the cutoff. (and I am aware some of these players played more than one position, and some even caught a game or two). I will try to keep it at three or four players around each infield position. I know the best outfielder I leave off proably could out-hit the infielder listed, but here is my list anyway without looking up tooooo many stats:

Infielders:

Catchers:
Buck Ewing
Fred Carroll
Jack Clements
Charlie Bennett
Deacon McGuire

First Basemen:
Dan Brouthers
Roger Connor
Cap Anson

Second Basemen:
Cupid Childs
Fred Dunlap
Hardy Richardson
Bid McPhee

Third Basemen:
Bill Joyce
John McGraw
Denny Lyons
Deacon White

Shortstop:
George Davis
Jack Glasscock
Hughie Jennings
Bill Dahlen

Outfield:
Billy Hamilton
Ed Delahanty
King Kelly
Pete Browning
Sam Thompson
Mike Tiernan
Jim O'Rourke
George Gore
Jesse Burkett
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Bill Lange

Pitchers:
Kid Nichols
Cy Young
John Clarkson
Amos Rusie
Tim Keefe
Old Hoss Radbourn
Tony Mullane
Mickey Welch
Pud Galvin

[BillOK]

19th century team

I'm new to this so I may be a bit late on this subject, but I just love stuff like this.

Catcher: King Kelly ~ Just about the greatest utility player ever, his errors & passed balls are troubling, but he had the quickest of wits and would no doubt be a huge advantage to any pitcher.

1st Base: Dan Brouthers ~ The best hitter of the era, hands down.

2nd Base: Ross Barnes ~ I know this guy will raise a few eyebrows, but look at what we have. A league dominate hitter for average, power, and getting on base via the walk ( small #'s due to 9 balls needed to walk ). Played a difficult position to perfection, with range and sure handedness. Great base stealer and very fast. Also could play short or third as well as anyone. Truely this is the ultimate all-around player. As far as the competition, he out hit every one,Anson was great but not as good. Had he not been permanently weakened by his illness of 1877, he would have been the 1st player to 3000 hits. The fair-foul hit? Please, it just showed how great is bat control was, and he could hit without it. The guy is Wagner with a better eye at the plate!

3rd Base: John McGraw ~ Had a short career, but was an on-base machine, fast and skilled on the bases, played a high average 3rd base or a little better. Anyway, having a guy who was maybe the best baseball mind ever on your team can't hurt either.

Shortstop: Hugh Jennings ~ A teammate of McGraw and another player with a short but peaked career, for the time he was at his best he was the best fielder out there, who could hit for average and get on base with an amazing skill for being plunked, could run and steal, and was a smart baseball man himself.

Leftfield: Ed Delehanty ~ Underated all-around player, Ed had no weaknesses and a ton of strengths.

Centerfield: Billy Hamilton ~ The best leadoff man ever ( sorry Ricky ), vastly underated due to his quite nature. He didn't hit for power or have a good arm, but what he had as awesome.

Rightfield: Sam Thompson ~ Making it a sweep for the Phils in the 1890's, Big Sam was a great power/average hitter who played a fine right with a cannon for an arm. Figured out long after his death, he was the best RBI man ever!

Righthanded Starter: Tim Keefe ~ A workhorse with a eye for winning.

Second Starter: Bob Caruthers ~ I would have picked a lefty here but they were few in this era. Bob was a small man ( even back then ), but could pitch,hit, field, & run. Take a look at how winning seems to follow him through his career, it's not just luck.

Utility Man/ Pinch hitter: George Davis ~ A guy who hit well, ran real well, and fielded great, be it in the OF, at 3rd, or at SS. Awesome team value.