I have a tough time putting a reference point to statistics from prior to 1900, and Van Haltren's best years were during this time. Here are the members of the 1893 Pirates, where Van Haltren played his age 27 season. The team scored 970 runs and allowed 760 in a "pitcher's park". According to ballparks.com, the dimensions of the field were 400 feet down the lines and 450 feet to centerfield. So, were Jake Beckley, Jack Glasscock, Elmer Smith, Denny Lyons and George Van Haltren all very good hitters, or did the conditions of the time ensure that balls in play were very likely to become hits, and that pitchers struck out very few because of the requirement that they save their stuff?

I do know this. The league average team scored 6.57 runs per game, and the league average player drew almost 2 walks for every strikeout. For context, in 1930, the ultimate hitter's bacchanalia year of the first half of the 20th century, the average team scored 5.68 runs and the league average player drew about 1 walk for every strikeout.

I sincerely doubt that Van Haltren was a better hitter than Van Slyke. He may or may not have been a better defensive centerfielder; Van Slyke was pretty good out there himself.

Anyways, Van Haltren was pretty clearly a better player than Ellis Valentine, and Van Slyke can play right, so Manager Bobby Valentine can settle this one pretty easily.

On the 1893 Pirates, Adonis Terry pitched. He may not have had the best stuff, but he sure looked good out there.

Well, Beckley is in the Hall of Fame, and Glasscock (like Van Haltren) is about as close as you get. They were good hitters. Don't forget, that Pirates team was far more dominant than contemporary teams are.

Obviously, circumstances were different in the 1880s and 90s, and I imagine Van Slyke would actually have been a better player than Van Haltren at his peak because he was more than a singles hitter. Van Haltren was a better player over his career, though, and a better centerfielder relative to his peers.

Craig raises an interesting point here, and one I've meant to address a number of times ... everything in selecting these teams is relative; I think clearly on an objective comparitive basis, Van Slyke was "better" than Van Haltren.

In fact, I think it's pretty fair to say that if you uprooted Standard Everyday Ballplayer of today -- say, sticking with the "V" team theme, former Tiger and Indian shortstop Tom Veryzer -- and plopped him into the 1905 season, he'd dominate the competition. (This assumes taking modern knowlege with him.)

I would guess that if Mr. Peabody could swap out the Van Outfielders, Slyke would be in the Hall of Fame with Cobb and Speaker and Haltren would be struggling for playing time with the St. Paul Saints.

But relatively speaking, that's not the case ... Van Haltren was far better than the standard 1880s outfielder as opposed to comparing Van Slyke to his similar contemporaries such as Kevin McReynolds, Eric Davis and even the young Barry Bonds.