BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1934

[leecemark]

--I don't think anyone who has been at BBF for very long would consider me a Sisler fan, but he does stand out from his contemporaries - or at least his early contemporaries. Sisler had the best peak for a firstbaseman since Brouthers back in the 19th century. His stature has faded some due to the twin factors of his continuing to play after his eye problems turned him into an average player and the arrival of a new breed of slugging firstbaseman during the later part of his career.
--It appears that the expectations for a firstbaseman will be different now that HRs are becoming such a big part of the game. Teams are looking toward big mashers instead of the more athletic men stationed there in the past. Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx and younger sluggers such as Hank Greenberg are the new standard and Sisler doesn't match up well to them. He looked especially puny playing on the same fields as them once his batting skills were dimished. None of this should detract from his greatness at his peak, nor his deservedness of a spot in the Hall of Fame.

[PVNICK]

Contemporary accounts on fielding have proven to be totally wrong in many cases. I don't want to bring up a certain Yankees SS being that he hasn't been born yet here in 1934, but there are plenty of cases where the public and the press and even the players, managers and coaches (gold gloves) are clearly wrong about a player's fielding.

I understand about observers at times being wrong, but I still wonder how you come up with rating for 1B based on the data available, PO, A and PCT? Bill Buckner in his gimpy legged days with the Cubs and Sox would put up huge assist numbers that werr comaparble to Keith Hernandez if not higher but in Buckner's case were mainly flips to a covering pitcher because he could not get to the bag, rather than throws ot other bases or throws to the pitcher due to distance from the bag not slowness of 1B in being able to get to the bag. Looking at lines of type in a book Buckner's assist numebrs dwarf both Mattingly and Hernandez from 1983-1987.
Buckner Hernandez Mattingly
PO A PCT PO A PCT PO A PCT
1547 159 .993 1418 147 .992 278 12 .997
1366 161 .992 1214 142 .994 1107 124 .996
1040 101 .987 1310 139 .997 1318 87 .995
1384 184 .992 1199 149 .996 1377 100 .996
1067 157 .989 1298 149 .993 1239 91 .996

[mwiggins]

All the sources I read suggest Fournier was held back because of his stature and his inability to charge a bunt. That's not necessarily something that would translate to poor fielding statistics. Someone can lack range, but still be adept at fielding balls they can actually get to. Jake Beckley was guilty of having a weak arm, but he scores relatively well in defensive CWS as well.

Not being able to charge a bunt competently would be a rather large deal in the deadball era. Range isn't really a big deal for "modern" first basemen, but it was in the 1910's.

And just the fact that a guy who hit like he did couldn't get on the field tells you he didn't have just minor issues with playing first base. It wasn't until the liveball era was in full swing that he was able to play regularly. And it wasn't just one team that didn't feel he could handle the position.

And even when he did start, he led NL first basemen in errors in 1920 with 25 (7 more than the runner up). And after that he was first in errors in 1921, second in 1922, first in 1923, second in 1924, and second in 1925.

[Paul Wendt]

Bill Doak was one of the spitball pitchers permitted to continue his specialty after 1920. More important, when he ordered from Rawlings for the 1920 season he introduced the web between thumb and forefinger that everyone soon adopted in some form. They say Doak earns "a sizeable income" from the Bill Doak glove to this day.

Hank Gowdy enlisted in 1917 and spent all of the 1918 season in military service. Afterward he split the catcher's role for another seven seasons in the majors. Since then he has remained in the game as a coach for the Braves.

This year I have cast a vote for Chief Bender at last. If 74% of the voters want to honor him as the first native Indian star, I will go along with that.

[jjpm74]

Not being able to charge a bunt competently would be a rather large deal in the deadball era. Range isn't really a big deal for "modern" first basemen, but it was in the 1910's.

And just the fact that a guy who hit like he did couldn't get on the field tells you he didn't have just minor issues with playing first base. It wasn't until the liveball era was in full swing that he was able to play regularly. And it wasn't just one team that didn't feel he could handle the position.

And even when he did start, he led NL first basemen in errors in 1920 with 25 (7 more than the runner up). And after that he was first in errors in 1921, second in 1922, first in 1923, second in 1924, and second in 1925.

I definitely agree with everything you said here. I'm just offering a reason why Fournier's defense doesn't look bad on paper.

[mwiggins]

How does Sisler fair in defensive WS's during his pre-illness peak years? I don't know for sure, but I would expect that his fielding probably suffered as well from his vision problems. Does Win Shares show that? I'm sure most, if not all, of the historical praise of Sisler's fielding were refering to him in his prime.

[mwiggins]

I definitely agree with everything you said here. I'm just offering a reason why Fournier's defense doesn't look bad on paper.

Another big reason would probably be that during the years he was considered too poor a fielder to play full time, he wasn't racking up poor DWS scores because he wasn't playing. Most of his DWS rates are going to be reflecting his time as a regular during the 1920's. But that doesn't change the fact that during the 1910's he was considered very sub-par as a fielder and Sisler was considered a defensive wiz. If Fournier had been playing full time in the 1910's and rating as one of the worst 1B in the league in terms of DWS, his career DWS rates would probably look quite a bit worse.

[SavoyBG]

You continue to ignore how rate stats diminish over time. Sisler played significantly longer than the other players in this conversation, it's almost comparing apples to oranges. You're essentially punishing Sisler for playing much longer and rewarding the others for having much shorter careers. It should be to Sisler's credit that he outlasted them by substantial margins. If you want to be more fair in these comparisons, compare Sisler through the same amount of plate appearances that the others had. For instance, compare Sisler's first 5000 plate appearances to Chance's career (which was approximately 5000 plate appearances). When you do this, you'll find that Sisler's rate stats jump up remarkably, and it is a more fair and less misleading comparison. Otherwise, you're essentially equated 5000 plate appearances to 9000, and that's just not right.

The problem is that the second half of Sisler's career is MUCH WEAKER than would normally be for a player who had a first half of a career like he did.

I've already shown that despite the shorter careers, that Terry +(already by 1933) and Fournier had more career adjusted batting runs than Sisler. Essentially George was a well below average player after 1922. For what it's worth, his TPR after 1922 is NEGATIVE 6.0 games.

And as for his fielding, it's too far below Terry ann even Chance to be chalked up to being cuased merely by playing longer.

Here's some other firstbasemen who played as long or close to as long as Sisler:

PLAYER - INNINGS - WS per 1,000 innings
Pipp - 16063 - 2.17
Konetchy - 18463 - 2.10
Daubert - 17855 - 1.90
McInnis - 17539 - 1.89
Beckley - 20802 - 1.82
Judge - 18188 - 1.69
Sisler - 17575 - 1.35

The anecdotal evidence for Chase is even more compelling than for Sisler. Maybe win shares fielding is totaly wrong on these guys, but I would find it hard to believe that Sisler was the best fielder of this bunch.

[SavoyBG]

How does Sisler fair in defensive WS's during his pre-illness peak years? I don't know for sure, but I would expect that his fielding probably suffered as well from his vision problems. Does Win Shares show that? I'm sure most, if not all, of the historical praise of Sisler's fielding were refering to him in his prime.

Let's see:

The only year when Sisler led his league in fielding win shares was 1918. Otherwise it was Pipp, Gandil, McInnis or Sheely leading during Sisler's peak years. Pipp led 4 times in 6 years between 1915 and 1920.

[DoubleX]

The problem is that the second half of Sisler's career is MUCH WEAKER than would normally be for a player who had a first half of a career like he did.

That's true, but you seem to want to ignore the fact that the other players weren't even playing for that portion of their careers. You're rewarding them for playing substantially less than Sisler did. How is that fair? When you do that, you equate all career lengths. Is it fair to put someone like Benny Kauff on the same footing as someone like Cap Anson? This is an extreme example, but your posts here would seem to imply that yes, Kauff's 149 OPS+ is better than Anson's 141 OPS+, and that the vast difference in length of their careers doesn't matter.

[SavoyBG]

That's true, but you seem to want to ignore the fact that the other players weren't even playing for that portion of their careers. You're rewarding them for playing substantially less than Sisler did. How is that fair? When you do that, you equate all career lengths. Is it fair to put someone like Benny Kauff on the same footing as someone like Cap Anson? This is an extreme example, but your posts here would seem to imply that yes, Kauff's 149 OPS+ is better than Anson's 141 OPS+, and that the vast difference in length of their careers doesn't matter.

Of course it matters, but I hope you''re not saying that the difference between the length of Kauff's career (not to mention his best seasons were in a league that was probably worse than the PCL) and the length of Anson's career are similar to the differences between the length of Sisler's career and the length of Fournier or Terry's career.

Please look at these numbers one more time:

ADJUSTED BATTING RUNS
Fournier - 313
Terry - 280 (through 1933)
Sisler - 250
Chance - 216

Sisler may have played longer, but he was arguably hurting his team for much of that time, and Fournier and Terry not only had better rate stats, but also produced many more runs (above average) than Sisler did during their careers.

This all started when somebody suggested that Sisler was definitely the best hitting firstbaseman of the century before Gehrig. I say that this is very debatable, no matter how you want to define "best hitting."

As for the Kauff/Anson comp.....

ADJUSTED BATTING RUNS
Anson - 511
Kauff - 174

If Kauff had more adjusted batting runs than Anson, as Terry and Fournier have more than Sisler, THEN I might say he was a better hitter than Anson.

See the difference?

[DoubleX]

Of course it matters, but I hope you''re not saying that the difference between the length of Kauff's career (not to mention his best seasons were in a league that was probably worse than the PCL) and the length of Anson's career are similar to the differences between the length of Sisler's career and the length of Fournier or Terry's career.

Sisler had around 3000 more plate appearances than Fournier. That's not enough for you? That's like 5 or 6 seasons worth of playing. So of course Fournier has a huge advantage at having higher rate stats. It seems like you'd like Sisler a lot more if he stopped playing after 6000 PA, which as I pointed out before, would give him a 141 OPS+.

I also think you missed my point in using Kauff and Anson. It was meant to be an exaggerated example to illustrate that PA differences mean something.