The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1932-03-11
TALKING
ITOvER
By JOE WILLIAMS

NEW YORK, March IL. - Ever
IN so often Mr.. John j. McGraw
Of the Giants feels disposed to pick
an all-time all-America baseball
team. From time to time, Mr.. Nc
Graw sees fit to change the person.
mel Of his all-time all-America team,
and usually without any modern
additions.
But always Mr.. McGraw holds
firmly to three selections, Mathew
son in the box, Bresnahan behind
the plate and Wagner at shortstop.
Mathewson was undoubtedly one Of
the greatest pitchers of all time.
Everybody that ever saw him or hit
against him puts him at the top.
Bresnahsn's position among the
esndurlng greats is much less positive. Mr.
nc siSSIaW Is one OF the few who grant
niE a superlatiye ranking. I have heard
e9tner baseball men call Ray Schalk and
steve O'Nein better catchers than the
old Giant star, and in more recent times
me me ol Is, has gone 10 Mickey Coch-
Il think it will be freely conceded that
connie MACK Is as good a Judge Of ball
pPt ncnrs as Mr; McGraw. and Connie thinks
Cochrane outranks any catcher he ever
saw; Having been a catcher himself
Mack may be accepted as a fairly COM
Naming Wagner as the all time short
SOP Is not likely to provoke any furious
controversy, But Mr.. McGraw goes
beyond that he calls Wagner the greatest
pan player that ever lived greater than
Cobb, greater than Ruth. lot Of people
VII give MI. McGraw an argument on
certainly is entitled to his opinion. and
Tor all 1 know he may be wholly correct.
n
MIR. M'GRAW has always insist
AVA ed that an infelder is more
important in baseball than an out
helder. An inf1elder does much more
work and he carries much more re-
Sponsibility No great team in his
tory was without a good second baca
combination.
Teams with great outfelders often
get nowhere, but if they have = good
combination around second base
they can do with mediocre fielding
beyond the infield. OF the two, the
shortstop is much more important
than the second baseman.
Personally am inclined to believe wae-
ner was greater ball PLAYER than Cobb
In analyzing Cobb and Wagner much goes
TO ,WaEner's side, Of the debate. Cobb
weaknesses as an outhelder. He rarely
play, PLAYED position for a batter. depending
him TO the ball He was one OF the weak
est throwers IN the majors.
Euth probably tops Cobb. too. He's
isn't much wrong with his hitting. Be
sides before he turned to outfielding he
vas, vas well on his way to lasting fame as
Wagner had no flaws as fielder. He
covered more ground than any other short
He was equally good going to his right OF
his left, He could go back q long way.
He was originally iiyS an nu' o UiSdd and
PLAYED the outfield for a few years. Mr..
McGraw tells YOU he was one of the best
ished game at frst and at third. He could
play FIRST better than any first baseman in
mmy Collins Wss betF trd
He played second base for a while and he
caught at times.
TITO repeat he did everything but
Il pitch, but few moderns remem-
Der him as anything but a short
stop. Wagner was great hitter and
a great baserunner. He was not the
scientific hitter that Cobb was nor
the Slugger that Ruth is, but no
pitcher took delight in throwing
to him under any circumstances.
Cobb had it on him in base running
IT is hard to compare him with Ruth
in this respect. Ruth is an efficient base
runner but the7 do not run the bases as
earnestly today as they did In Wagner's
time. In Wagner's time you had to be a
base runner, Today it doesn't matter
much.
Several years ago in the south I was
talking with Bresnahan about Wagner
Il caught many games behind him and
peysr found real tH weakness in him.
he could not hit quite as we'll as the rest
it was a slow curve ball pitched low and
inside but then. who can hit a slow
curve ball pitched low and inside? And
how manv pitchers can deliver 1t that
way?"