The Baseball Guru - EARLY PLAYER PROFILES: SISLER - EWING - MCALEER - BERGEN - BENNETT - ARCHER

SISLER - EWING - MCALEER - BERGEN - BENNETT - ARCHER - LANGE - BERGEN - WILLIAMSON - LONG

Introducing George Harold Sisler: March 24, 1894, Manchester, OH - March 23, 1973, Richmond Heights, MO
St. Louis Browns, 1B, '15-27, Washington Senators 1B, 1920, Boston Braves 1B, 1928-30
St. Louis Browns manager, 1924-26
Boston Braves coach, 1930
Brooklyn Dodgers' scout, 1943-50, Pittsburgh Pirates scout, 1951-73, his death.

Since most people now feel so strongly that Lou Gehrig deserves to rate as the 1st baseman on the All-Time All-Star Team, I will now introduce
my choice, as an alternative, Georgeous George Sisler, The Perfect Player, The Sizzler.
I will do my best to express why I chose Sisler as my 1B, on my All-Time All-Star Team over Lou Gehrig. A lot of it was well known at that time,
but obscure for ages by now.

From around 1917, Sisler was touted as the natural next successor to Cobb by a great number of people. Like Ruth, he started out as a good pitcher,
but his hitting forced his conversion to a position player way before Ruth. Sisler was greater than Hornsby earlier. He was brilliant at first,
and only Chase out-fielded him. Hornsby started as a SS and converted to 2nd, presumably because he couldn't catch a popup behind him.
To be concise, Sisler was seen as the Greatest Player in BB from '20-22. Many articles in Sporting News and Baseball Magazine in my files confirm
this. Sisler and Hornsby were great cross-town rivals, and admired each other greatly. On the open market at the time, Sisler commanded the
higher trade price. Hornsby was perceived as #2, after Sisler, until he developed eye problems, which he never recovered 100% from.
I am basing my rating on peak value only. At their best, Sisler outplayed and out-classed Rogers in the field, on the bases, and in the dugout.
Rogers was way too unnecessarily blunt and this hurts team cohesion and morale. And while Hornsby's owners kept peddling him off, before '23,
trading Sisler was unthinkable. Branch Rickey turned down something like $350K for him. After 1923, Hornsby was the much better player.
In another thread, someone blasted me for putting Sisler on my all-time team, and Gehrig on my B team. I've included my defense to that
comparison below. Hornsby did have more pop, but I don't know if the Sizzler wouldn't have upped his power numbers if his eyes didn't go bad on him.
Perhaps another measurement of how they were perceived in their day is the Hall of Fame vote. Here it is;

	Sisler	Hornsby
1936,Feb.2----------- 77 (34%)---------105 (46%)
1937,Jan.20---------106 (52%)-----------53 (26%)
1938,Jan.19---------179 (68%)-----------46 (17%)
1939,Jan.25---------235 (85%)elected-176(64%)
1942,Jan.21--------------------------------182 (.78%)elected

Many people who had seen Sisler from 1918-22, never forgot him and always rated him up with Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner. I probably haven't convinced
you, but he was such an intense, competitive, complete all-round player, that I can't rate him lower than Hornsby, who couldn't catch a pop fly.
I've taken a lot of heat for my choice of Sisler for a long time. But he personifies my type of player over Lou.

I won't knock Lou in defense of George because,
1. You can't knock Lou.
2. I like him and put him on my B team.

One thing I can say by way of explanation is that I'm comparing them for peak value, not career. And there are many things to be said for The
Sizzler that are not obvious.

1. He was the greatest defensive 1B in BB history, after Hal Chase on an honest day.
2. He led his league in SB 4 times.
3. In 1922, he was 1st in the ML in TPR, with 6.3.
4. In '20, he finished 2nd behind Ruth in HRs with 19, in '19 he finished in a 3way tie for 2nd in HRs with 10.
5. In 1920, he led Ruth in total bases, 399 to 388, despite Ruth's 54 HRs to George's 19.

You may not be aware of it, but for the 1919-22 period, Sisler, and NOT Ruth was considered the Greatest Player in the game. This was the opinion
of such people as Christy Mathewson and Ferdinand C. Lane, long-time editor-in-chief of Baseball Magazine from 1912-37, Branch Rickey,
Bob Quinn, and many others.

While it is true that George Sisler's peak, 1920-22, is all too brief, while there, he blazed like a white-hot super-nova. In 1920, although he led the AL in
only BA. (.407), and Hits (257 - still the ML record), he also posted the following stats. However, I thought it might be more interesting to
display them in contrast with those of the Babe for the same year.
1920
Name---age---games----PA---AB---Outs--RC--Runs---H----2B---3B---HR---RBI---TB--BB--SO--BA---OBP--SLG---OPS+---SB---CS--SB%--SH--HBP
Sisler----27--- 154------692---631----404--178--137---257--49---18---19----122--399--46--19--.407--.449--.632----179-----42---17---71--15-----2-
Ruth-----25----142------616---458----305--205--158---172--36-----9---54---137--388-150--80-.376- -.532-- .847----252-----14---14---50---5------3

Name------FR--TPR----------(home SLG---away SLG)
Sisler------13---7.8----------(.760------------.503) Away SLG. is 66% of Home SLG.
Ruth---------0---9.1----------(.985-------------.736) Away SLG. Is 74% of Home SLG.

Moreover, besides the above record, Geoge has more. He played every inning of league time, led the league in assists, and went hitless in only
23 games. That a so-called singles hitter could hang so close to a mighty slugger, in one of that slugger's mightiest seasons, shows that perhaps
that singles hitter isn't so power puny after all. And add to that record, being the greatest defensive 1Bman in the MLs, and a league-leading base
stealer, and you start to perceive why the BB world considered Sisler the better and more valuable player in the game, from 1920-22. He did win
the MVP in 1922. George fanned only 327 times in his 15 yr. career.

In terms of support, I'll concede you that Gehrig gets the majority of the big names. But Gorgeous George is not completely without big name support
of his own. In my file," position players", I have Lou with 50 prominent baseball figures putting him on their all time teams, and George has 44.

Included in Lou's supporters are, with the yr. of their selection:
McGraw(31), Joe McCarthy(38), John B. Foster (long time editor of Spalding Guide, (1912-41), chose Lou in spring,'38, Dan Daniel(44),
Dan Daniel(44), Mack(50), Dykes(67), Fred Lieb(77), Bill James(2002), Gehringer(87), Dickey(87), Shirley Povich(97).

Included in Sisler's supporters are: Ban Johnson(29), Bucky Harris(31), Muddy Ruel(42), Grantland Rice(45), Red Smith(50), Eddie Collins(50), Max
Carey(50), J. Roy Stockton(52), Frank Baker(55), Cobb(61), Cochrane(61), Hornsby(62), Branch Rickey(65), Leonard Koppett(69), Bob Shawkey(77),
Bob Broeg(98).

Connie Mack always chose George Sisler as his 1B, all the way up until July, 1944, before he switched to Lou Gehrig, similar to John McGraw.
So it is clear from this distinguished roster, that the case is anything but clear. So what caused so many sober men to choose Sisler over Lou?
Perhaps they saw deeper into the equation than later day observers.
One thing is clear. Some of Lou's stats are hyper-inflated due to his close proximity to the Babe. Ruth was almost always on base, and Lou had
many more runners to hit in than Sisler, who played on the lowly Browns, who in their entire history, have the dubious distinction, of being the
only team in ML history to have NEVER won a World Series. In fact, they only made it to the WS in '44 and lost to cross town rivals, the Cards.
Lou, being on MUCH better teams, was always in a much better position for runs and RBIs. So I look upon his super-human productivity and realize,
he played in a premium scoring era. In the context of his era, Lou's productivity wasn't out of line. Other players were putting up numbers
very comparable to his. Foxx, Greenberg, Hack Wilson, Hornsby, DiMag, Al Simmons, all were turning out RBI seasons above 150, year after year. And
the others weren't on as good teams as Lou was. So his era, his great teams, and of course his own great talent explain his great numbers.

In '38, Joe McCarthy sentimentally chose Gehrig as his selection of the Greatest Ever player. Everyone smiled. No one took him seriously. In '44,
J. Roy Stockton, long time St. Louis sports writer and editor, named Sisler as HIS Greatest Ever ballplayer. Once again, everyone smiled.
No one took him seriously. Detroit fans were not amused, or maybe perhaps they were. Who's to say?

In his revised Historical Abstract, Bill James dropped Sisler from his top 100, along with Bill Terry. However, in his first edition, he said,
pp. 349, "As to peak value, the choice between Sisler and Gehrig is not so simple,. . . It is possible that given a more careful consideration of
defense and base running, given that it might later be established that Gehrig's superhuman RBI totals were a natural outcome of his productivity
and position in the lineup, I might switch to Sisler."

To directly compare stats in '20-22 with '27-38, is not real. Not all runs or RBIs are created equal. You're showing the raw, naked numbers,
which shouldn't be done. Until they are processed and indexed to the league averages, they are "cooked". It's like comparing 1908 with 1930.
We just can't do that and feel righteous about ourselves. It isn't fair to Sisler or to you & me. Was Greenberg a greater slugger than Mantle or
Musial, cause he sure buried them when it comes to RBIs? He even hit more HRs in a season than them. Numbers are relative until they are indexed.
Well, unfortunately for George, Mr. James went the other way, and demoted him. Well, this isn't the first time that the notorious Mr. James and I
have parted ways in important baseball matters.
This particular argument is almost a close clone of the Collins/Hornsby, Ty/Babe issue. The big difference is that Sisler's eye problems,
curtained his greatness, and longevity, while Cobb lasted a long time at a high level.
I know that there is no way that I'm going to change anyone's mind, but Sisler is my man, and I think that if he hadn't had his eye trouble, he
would have been many times greater yet.

I am totally aware of how crazy some of what I print sounds today. After 70 years of conventional wisdom, what I purport, that Sisler has a real
claim to A team honors, must have a quaint yet feeble, forlorn vibe to it. So, for that reason, I can't judge anyone for feeling incredulous to
my findings. But here is just one of very many instances, where everyone between 1918-22, said that the only thing that Cobb had that Sisler
lacked, was a maniacal, compulsive, obsessive determination to beat everybody at everything for as long as he could.

Here is a little quote about Sisler from Eddie Collins, from Sporting News, Nov. 8, 1950, pp. 14.
"I've seen some great players in the game, as I have stated before, and the greatest of them all, in my estimation, was Ty Cobb. But ranking
close behind him was George Sisler. Sisler came as near to approaching, of even eclipsing, Cobb as any player ..…There were some great
players in my era, and Sisler ranked with the greatest. I've heard it said many times that Cobb and Ruth ranked alone. I think Sisler ought to be
included with them at the very top of the heap." (Sporting News, November 8, 1950, pp. 14)
So that was Collins quote. Perhaps it might have been because both Sisler an Collins were so exactly the same kind of player. Both had
idolized the amazing Ty Cobb and had based their own style of playing baseball on Cobb's style. In 1922, George broke one of his idols records.
He hit safely in 41 consecutive games, breaking by one Ty Cobb's 1911 record. And George was injured for 2 games at the end in doing it. He
so highly thought of at that moment, that his team refused over $200,000. for his contract. Some say the figure was $350,000. But it is known
that Sisler's market value, like Hornsby's were easily in the same category as Ruth's, all though today, one wouldn't know it, to judge from their
lack of Ruth's fame.

Like Joe Wood before him, just when George bestrode the BB world, disaster struck him down. During the winter of 1922-23, he contracted a
poisonous sinusitis, which caused him double vision.
George Sisler had to sit out the entire 1923 season, due to it. When he came back in 1924, his problems were not completely healed.
He couldn't look at anything for a prolonged period, before he had to look away to re-focus his vision. And it didn't take pitchers long to discover
this. So, they'd keep him waiting up there at the plate, until he had to look down to re-focus his eyes, and THEN they'd pitch to him. Yet, incredibly,
George still lasted in the majors from 1923-29, coping with his eyes inability to focus. It's a wonder he could play at all, with such double-vision.
But George was so respected for his BB smarts, that when he came back in 1924, the Browns GM offered him the position of player/manager,
which he filled from 1924-26, at the rate of $25,000./yr. Defensively, George sparkled like Hal Chase on an honest, clean day. He led the league
1Bmen in assists 6 times, and DPs twice. He made 140 assists in 1922, despite being injured in his shoulder late in the season. He was elected to
the Hall of Fame in its 4th yr. of voting, 1939, before Hornsby.

Sisler's Power Case:
George did hit a lot of singles, that's true. And it is also true that that's how he was perceived, both then & now. And that's fair & accurate.

But Sizzler posted quite excellent power numbers during his all-too-brief "peak".

1917, 4th SLG.%, TB, OBP.
1918, 4th OBP, SLG.%, 5th TB.
1919, 2nd HR, SLG.%, 3rd TB
1920, 1st TB, 2nd HR, SLG.%, RBIs, 3rd OBP.
1921, 5th SLG.%, TB.
1922, 2nd TB, 4th RBIs, 5th SLG.%.

So, before we be hasty, and relegate The Sizzler to the "singles only" category of Boggs/Gwynn/Fox/Waner/Keeler type of hitter, let's hold up & see if the
stereo-type actually applies here. And it doesn't.

Special NOTE:
In 1920, Sisler hit 19 homers to Ruth's 54, so Georgie boy got no PR for power. If he had hit that many only the year before, Ruth would have had some competition
for PR/hype, since he created a hysteria by hitting 29.

One assumes Hornsby had better power than Sizzler.

But Sizzler led Hornsby in SLG. % in 1918 by 24 points,
-----------------------------------1919 by 100 points,
-----------------------------------1920 by 73 points.
He also led Rogers in HRs in 1919-20.

So, while Rogers, ultimately did have more power overall, I don't think we should assume that George Sisler had NO power to speak of.

In his times, he was considered a quite balanced power guy, like Aaron/Clemente in later times. A guy who could hold up his end without huffing & puffing.
In fact, before 1923, his power was not thought of as behind Rogers, but his full equal in power, & Rogers was what I consider the ULTIMATE balanced power
hitter ever. I am fully informed that that perception was altered in 1922, when Rogers broke through to the next level with his 42 HRs.

But how do we know, that George might not have risen to the occasion and upped HIS game, if not for the eye problems? All debate stops after that. George
wasn't the same guy. But for his brief peak . . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCA--Win Shares---TPR,
Code:

---------PCA GG-------WinSh----TPR**---Bl Ink-------Gr Ink
1915 - 13 (Pipp)--------0.8--------10---------0-----------0
1916 - 3 (Pipp)---------1.7--------25---------0----------22
1917 - 7 (Pipp)---------3.5--------29---------0----------13
1918 - 1 --------------4.6--------22---------2----------18
1919 - 3 (Pipp)---------3.9--------24---------0----------26
1920 - 1 --------------7.6--------33---------9----------25
1921 - 4 (McInnis)------2.7--------27---------3----------26
1922 - 8 (Sheely)-------5.2--------29--------13----------22

1923 - INJ-----------------inactive-------------
1924 - 7 (Judge)------ -3.0--------11---------0----------11
1925 - 4 (Blue)------ -0.5--------19---------0-----------9
1926 - 9 (Todt)------ -3.4--------11---------0-----------2
1927 - 8 (Todt)------ -1.1--------16---------2----------11
1928 - 6 (Bissonette)---0.6---------0---------0-----------4
1929 - 10 (Kelly)---- 1.3--------15---------0-----------5
1930 - 9 (Terry)----- -1.8--------18---------0-----------0
-----------------------------------------------------------
-475.8

PCA* = Mathew Sounder's PCA stat Gold Glove system
WinSh** = Bill James' Win Shares
TPR*** = Total Baseball's Total Player Rating

Introducing William Alexander "Bill" Lange: June 6, 1871, San Francisco, CA - July 23, 1950, San Francisco, CA
NL OF, 1893-1899

Bill Phelon wrote the following piece on Bill Lange in Baseball Magazine in 1915.
Bill Phelon, Chicago, New York, Cincinnati. sports writer, 1889-1925
1915 - After seeing them all come and go for nearly thirty years: after seeing the great ones and the little ones, those who starred for years
and years, and those who passed early from the game, two figures of them all persist in forcing themselves upon my memory, and in plain
opposition to each other--the forms of Tyrus Cobb and William Lange. Somehow, some way, these two always present themselves
before me for comparison, and, despite all the praise they lavish on the Georgian today, I cannot see where the gigantic Lange was his inferior!
Lest I seem biased in my love for old-time pals, I'll instantly add this: That I cannot see where Cobb is the inferior of Lange. If ever two men,
of strangely different physical and temperamental types, were to be counted as an equal, well-matched pair, these two were Lange and Cobb.

Were Lange a youthful player of today, he'd be Cobb's greatest rival. Had Cobb played in the time of Lange, he'd have been big Bill's closest
competitor. If Lange possessed the eel-like agility of Cobb, there would have been no chance to stop him. If Cob had the size of Lange, without
impeding his own speed, he'd never get through scoring.


On the defensive, there was, to my way of thinking, no choice, between Lange and Cobb. Both could cover enormous outfield territories: both were
marvelously sure when they got their hands upon the ball. I think Lange had the better throwing arm of the two. Moreover, Lange,
Lange, originally a catcher by trade, could be brought in from the gardens and used anywhere in case of need, and played all the infield
places capably for Chicago at one time or another.

At the bat: Considering the time when each played, and the rules, I can see small difference between the colossal Californian and the wiry
wonder of the South.
Lange had no foul-strikes to handicap him, but in his day a caught foul tip was an immediate out. Then, too, he faced great pitchers, who
during at least part of his career, worked from a shorter distance, and there were no "sacrifice flies" in the score to help his average.

It was on the bases, though--in the wondrous way that both circled round the cushions--that the strange likeness between Lange and
Cobb is most strongly demonstrated. It is said that Cobb does a lot of daring things, all his own invention, never tried by any other player.
I distinctly remember many of Cobb's tricks as exact duplicates of Lange's --tricks forgotten when Bill left the game, and revived
long afterward by the Georgian. Nor do I call Cobb a copy-cat: he never saw Lange play ball, and his tricks are simply those that
naturally found new roots in the mind of a thinker and great base runner. Lange stretched his his hits just as Cobb does now.
Lange was lighting quick to rush for an adjoining base on the slightest fumble or lack of watchfulness--just as Cobb is today.

The smallest slowness of slovenliness in the throw-in, the pickup of the throw-in, or the guarding of bases, meant the sudden arrival
of Lange at the next station--as is the case with Cobb when the smallest opening is given. In straightaway steals, both Lange and Cobb
were marvels at getting away, or getting the jump on the pitcher's delivery. For a heavy man, Lange had terrific speed. Perhaps the lighter-built
Cobb could actually out sprint Lange, but when it came to the instant of arriving at the base, Lange's immense size used to scare the infielders
out of his way. He never spiked any one, because he didn't have to --they broke for cover when his 230 pounds bore down upon them.
Cobb makes up for lack of weight by the wicked impetus of his slide and the dangerous onrush of his spikes. Lange stole a few more bases,
both on the season and in proportion to number of games and chances offered. But in those days they were accustomed to let a runner steal
or fail, without trying the hit and run or bunting as he went--hence Lange had fewer blossoming steals killed off by the batsmen than is the
case with Cobb.

In - short, Lange, in my humble opinion, was the full equal of Cobb--and, therefore, one of the greatest ballplayers that the game has ever known."
(Baseball Magazine, August, 1915, pp. 47-48, "Handicaps of the Early Season, by William A. Phelon, pp. 41-50)
Bill James wrote a wonderful piece on Bill Lange in his "Bill James Historical Abstract, 1988, pp. 49-51, which he reprinted verbatim
in his updated 2001 Abstract."

Hughie Jennings, Apr. 4, 1869 - Feb. 1, 1928; ML SS, 1B, 1891 - 1902; Detroit manager, 1907-20; Giants coach, 1921-25
"(Walter) Brodie, who played alongside of Keeler, had personality. Although he was not so good a fielder as Jimmy McAleer
or Bill Lange or Tris Speaker, because he lacked their speed, I doubt if there ever lived a man who played batsmen as accurately
as Brodie." (Los Angeles Times, Jan. 4, 1926, pp. B2)


1. Bill Lange's Sporting News obituary:
William A. (Big Bill) Lange, 79, regarded as one of baseball's all-time greats, . . .
When informed of his death, Clark Griffith, president of the Washington Senator, said: "I played ball with Bill Lange
on the Chicago National League club for some eight years. I have seen all the other great outfielders-Speaker, Cobb, DiMaggio--in action,
and I consider Bill Lange the equal of, if not better than, all outfielders of all time. There wasn't anything he couldn't do."
. . . known as "Little Eva," a name pinned on him by the late Hugh Fullerton, because of the graceful manner, in which
he fielded his position, chasing down fly balls. (author's note; Little Egypt was a name of a famous belly-dancer.)

"Considered one of the greatest base runners of all time, . . . Here's what Honus Wagner once said about the Californian:
'I'll never forget the first time I tried to put the ball on Lange. He pulled the prettiest hook slide I ever saw and there I was standing sort of
foolish-like, with the ball, nowhere near him.' "

At the height of his career, in 1899, he married (Grace Geiselman of Cal.) and entered the real estate and insurance
business in San Francisco with his father-in-law. He had been making $3,000. a year from the White Stockings, who agreed to double his salary
for 1900 if he would return, but he refused. (Sporting News, Aug. 2, 1950)

2. Alfred Henry Spink, Aug. 24, 1854 - May 27, 1928; founder and editor of The Sporting News (1886), described Lange
as "Ty Cobb enlarged, fully as great in speed, batting skill and base running."

3. Tim H. Murnane, June 4, 1851 - Feb 7, 1917; ML 1B, 1872-78; Boston spwr. 1888-1917 of the Boston Globe listed the game's
best outfielders up to 1914 as Cobb, Joe Jackson, and Lange.

4. Clark Griffith, Nov. 20, 1898 - Oct. 27, 1955; (ML pitcher,1891-14), (Senators manager,1901-20), Senators owner,1920-55
Comparing these stars with Bill Lange, of the old generation, the shows that the old generation suffers. Cobb and Speaker
are Lange's superiors, and I think that Milan is almost Lange's equal. Among the other great outstanding stars of the past, and present were
Willie Keeler, Fred Clarke, Fielder Jones, Jesse Burkett, Elmer Flick, Hugh Duffy, Mike Donlin, Jimmy McAleer, Jim Fogarty, and Dickey Johnson.
(Washington Post, April 26, 1914, pp. S2)

William B. Hanna, (Oct., 1956? - Nov. 20, 1930); (NY sportswriter, 1888-1930)
"Bill Lange covered as much ground as Speaker and was a sure catch and fine thrower. As a base runner only Cobb
excelled him. He was as adept at getting a start on the pitcher. He wouldn't steal as many bases now, for the game, with the lively ball,
is played differently, but even now he'd shine as a base runner. Six footer though he was, he was one of the cleverest sliders in the game.

Cap Anson, April 11, 1852 - April 14, 1922; (ML 1B, 1871-97), (ML man., 1875, '79-98) - "Bill Lange, who played for me when I had charge
of the Chicago National League club, was in a class by himself as an outfielder. He was a better outfielder than Cobb or Speaker and a
phenomenal thrower, and one year he stole 106 bases." (Washington Post, June 3, 1917, pp. S18)

J. Earl Wagner, (61) - Nov. 11, 1943, (Owned Philadelphia Phillies & Washington Senators in 1890's, for brief periods).
"Bill Lange, if he would cut out his monkey doodle business, as Chris calls it, would fit into my team as captain and I would pay
a liberal price for the release of Lange from the Chicago club, and would give him a contract that would call for more money than is paid
any player in the major leagues." (Washington Post, October 8, 1899, pp. 8)

The 10 year rule prevents Bill Lange from being considered for the Hall of Fame. I advocate that that rule be excepted for the case of Bill Lange.
I contend that he was the 2nd best defensive OF the 1890's, after Jimmy McAleer, the 3 best all-around position player of the 1890's, after
Buck Ewing and Cap Anson, and ahead of Willie Keeler. I further hold that Bill Lange is a top tier Hall of Fame player, irregardless of whether or
not he is ever recognized by organized baseball as such. I personally place him in my Top 20 greatest all-around players of all time.

Introducing William "Buck" Ewing: October 27, 1859, Hoagland, OH - October 20, 1906, Cincinnati, OH
NL catcher, IF, OF, 3B, 2B, P, 1880-97
NL manager, 1890, 1895-1900

Bill James; Nov. 5, 1949 - Still Alive; Prolific author of BB books, popularized new study of BB stats, called "sabermetrics", amazingly widely-read
on BB subjects.
First called my attention to Buck Ewing, in his 1st Hist. Abstract, pp. 33-35. Bill points out that many respected BB men considered Ewing to
be the greatest all-around PLAYER ever, not simply the greatest catcher. John B. Foster, Mickey Welsh and Monte Ward all thought Buck
was the greatest ballplayer ever to play the game, until the day they died.
That got my attention. Sadly, Bill now down-rates Buck as a catcher due to so few games caught.

John P. McCarthy, Jr. also chooses Buck as his catcher on his A team, from his book, Baseball's All Time Dream Team, 1994.

Connie Mack, Dec. 22, 1862 - Feb. 6, 1956; NL catcher (1886-96), Phil Athletics' manager (1901-50)
Had Ewing as his catcher as late as Dec. 24, 1931, and John McGraw had Buck as his catcher until he died.

John McGraw, April 7, 1873 - Feb. 25, 1934; ML 3B (1891-06); Baltimore Oriole man. (1899 , 01-02), NY Giants man. 1902-32)
Had Buck as his catcher until he died.

Grantland Rice, Nov. 1, 1880 - July 13, 1954; (Atlanta, Cle., Nashville, NY spwr. 1902-54) Most loved, and widely read sports writer of all time.
Put him on a All Time team in 1918. (Sporting News, Jan. 10, 1918, pp. 5, column 2.)

4. Clark Griffith, Nov. 20, 1898 - Oct. 27, 1955; (ML pitcher,1891-14), (Senators manager,1901-20), Senators owner,1920-55
Chose Buck as his catcher of his scientific team in 1952, and Cochrane/Dickey for his "power" team. (Sporting News, July 23, 1952, pp. 12)

A 3rd book describing Buck is The Greatest Giants of Them All by Arnold Hano, 1967. The section describing Buck is superb and too long to insert here.
But one can read this cool fascinating stuff on Buck Ewing through inter-library loans, for almost free.

Buck Ewing has been my catcher for about 17 years now. He was reputed to have been the best all-around PLAYER of the 1800's.

John B. Foster, NY spwr., 1888-1941, Editor-in-Chief of Official Spalding Baseball Guide(1908-41), NY Giants business manager/secretary, 1912-1919.
In spring, 1938, John B. Foster, the long time editor of Spalding Official Baseball Guide, from 1908-41, finally chose his all-time team,
and chose Ewing as his choice for the Greatest Ever Player. Foster had been watching players come and go since 1887.

Here is John Foster's entry for Ewing, from that 1938 Guide.
The first to be picked, and the first who should be selected in this stretch of fifty years, is William Ewing, better known as Buck."
He is to be the catcher. He has been called the greatest all-round player ever connected with the game. I think that he was. He pitched,
played every position on the infield and played the outfield.
He did not play at them but played them. I was ready to laugh at his efforts when he essayed to pitch, but he quickly cured me of the inclination.
Although he did not have the finesse of Tim Keefe, that great pitcher who was his contemporary, he showed that he had the art, was thoroughly
conversant with the batter's weakness, and was doing his level best to pitch to it.
The great speed of Keefe, the curves of Mickey Welsh and the cannonball service of ponderous Ed Crane were missing in Ewing,
yet he had an effective style of his own and the batter was not slow in ascertaining it.
He was a good adviser to his brother "Long John."
As a thrower to bases Ewing never had a superior, and there are not to exceed ten men who could come anywhere near being equal to him.
Ewing was the man of whom it was said,
He handed the ball to the second baseman from the batter's box. George W. Howe, treasurer of the Cleveland club, once asked the manager
of the team, Oliver Tebeau, why the runners of Cleveland, who were very good, did not steal bases more often when they
Because they're out before they start, was the quick replay. "That man behind the bat for New York can't be fooled. He knows when a runner
is going to start practically as
soon as the runner decides to make the attempt, and he shoots the ball down to Richardson, who catches the best man we've got.
He stands up an waits for him to come, and makes our runners look foolish."
What was said by Tebeau voiced the sentiment of every other captain in the league. Even the famed Mike Kelly used to study Ewing
for minutes at a time, trying to
find out how he managed to get the ball to second so smoothly and quickly." (Spalding NL Official Base Ball Guide, 1938, pp. 14)

Francis C. Richter, Philadelphia sportswriter (1876-1926), AL Reach Baseball Guide Editor-In-Chief (1901-1926, death)
John B. Foster's counterpart, Francis C. Richter, who had been watching ballplayers since the 1868, chose Ewing as the Greatest Player Ever in 1919.
Mr. Richter was a Phil. spwr. since 1872, and served as the Editor-In-Chief of the AL Official Base Ball Guide from 1902-1926.
He had started sp. dept. at newspapers, and was of the most influential movers & shakers in baseball.
Even though by 1925, Richter had evolved to Cobb, that only served to prove that he had never allowed himself to grow stale.
Here is the quote from Richter, taken from the 1919 Reach AL Baseball Official Guide.

"It is a difficult, not to say ungrateful, task to select any one player as superior to all the rest, though we have always been inclined to
consider Catcher-Manager William (Buck) Ewing in his prime, from 1884 to 1890, as the greatest player of the game.
from the standpoint of supreme excellence in all departments-batting, catching fielding, base running, throwing and base ball brains-a player
without a weakness of any kind, physical, mental, or temperamental. . . ."
I have seen all the players in the major leagues in action since 1868, and . . . Ty Cobb appears to me to be, with two exceptions,
just a trifle superior to all the rest. . . these two exceptions are Buck Ewing, the greatest catcher that ever stood in shoe leather
and Hans Wagner, the super-excellent shortstop of the Pittsburgh club." (Reach AL Baseball Official Guide, 1919)

John McGraw, April 7, 1873 - Feb. 25, 1934; ML 3B (1891-06); Baltimore Oriole man. (1899 , 01-02), NY Giants man. 1902-32)
In 1919, John McGraw had this to say about Buck. "Roger Bresnahan was the greatest catcher I ever saw, always excepting Buck Ewing."
(Baseball Magazine, May, 1919, pp. 14)

Four years later, In his autobiography in 1923, John J. McGraw, had this to say about Buck Ewing.
He came as near to being a catcher wit