Originally Posted by
Buzzaldrin
From what I gather, both Connor and Brouthers played old school first base, i.e., standing on the bag and being a big target for throws. Charlie Comiskey (and I suppose others but haven't heard who they may be) pioneered the more modern style of play playing off the bag. Connor's bio at SABR says "over time he also developed into an adept-fielding first baseman". Okay. I don't read anything about Brouthers being specially great in the field, but I also don't find anything about him being any sort of liability either, and Connor's possible advantage in the field just can't be enough to overcome the massive difference in batting between the two- and it is massive.
Brouthers is the 19th c leader in OPS+ and is 8th all time. In 13 full seasons he led the league in OPS+ 8 times, batting five times (in three different leagues), OBP five times, and slugging seven times. He achieved the very cool feat of leading the league in slugging every year from 1881-1886, then changing tack and leading the league in offensive WAR every year from 1887-1892. His lifetime .342 is 9th lifetime, and unlike other old time stars such as Delahanty or Hamilton, he didn't achieve that by running up loads of big years in the hitter friendly 1890s, but rather in the dead ball 1880s. He did all of this playing in the same leagues as Connor, who, good as he was, doesn't come remotely close to Brouthers' feats with the bat.
Don't get me wrong, Connor was a great hitter, no question, a sure fire hall of famer justly celebrated for both his longevity and his power skills- but there is, again, a large difference in their htting abilities. And even as to power- Brouthers had 1,000 fewer career at bats than Connor, but he still hit more doubles, and in both homers and triple per at bat they're vitually identical (Brouthers has a slight edge in triples/AB, Connor in homers/AB, but when I say slight, I mean it's basically a wash). That's one thing we forget about Connor- he may have been the 19th c homerun king in absolute terms, but there were several players who out homered him per at bat (in that respect Sam Thompson is ther clear 19th c home run king).
I suppose it's a similar argument (on a different scale) to Ruth/Aaron. Aaron was a great player, a great hitter, with amazing longevity and he hit more homeruns than Ruth. But he wasn't as good as Babe Ruth (and yes, I know that you can make cases with them for different leagues, integration, etc., but just assume for the sake of argument that they played in the same leagues at the same time against the same pitching).
Roger Connor was a great hitter; Dan Brouthers was one of the best hitters of all time. That, I believe, more than compensates for any small defensive differences between the two.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks