Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your Top 10 19th Century Players:

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by [email protected]
      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.
      "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

      Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

      Comment


      • #33
        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

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by [email protected]
          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

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by [email protected]
            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.
            "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

            Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

            Comment


            • #36
              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

              Comment


              • #37
                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.
                "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                Comment


                • #38
                  Jim,

                  Understood, but still let down. Sometimes, every great while, it pays to make a rare exception, to the general good rules.

                  Bill

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Well, well...

                    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

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 538280
                      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.
                      "Here's a crazy thought I've always had: if they cut three fingers off each hand, I'd really be a great hitter because then I could level off better." Paul Waner (lifetime .333 hitter, 3,152 lifetime hits.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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?
                        "He's tougher than a railroad sandwich."
                        "You'se Got The Eye Of An Eagle."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 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?
                          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.
                          "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                          Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ElHalo
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.
                              "Here's a crazy thought I've always had: if they cut three fingers off each hand, I'd really be a great hitter because then I could level off better." Paul Waner (lifetime .333 hitter, 3,152 lifetime hits.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 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.
                                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
                                Last edited by Bill Burgess; 11-04-2006, 10:09 AM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X