View Poll Results: PLEASE READ RULES, LIMIT TO 15 VOTES, AND POST BALLOT IN THREAD

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Babe Adams, SP (1906-1907, 1909-1916, 1918-1926) - 4th Year

    2 7.14%
  • Chief Bender, SP (1903-1917, 1925) - 13th Year

    10 35.71%
  • George H. Burns, 1B (1914-1927) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • George J. Burns, LF (1911-1925) - 5th Year

    5 17.86%
  • Joe Bush, SP (1912-1928) - 2nd Year

    1 3.57%
  • Max Carey, CF (1910-1929) - 1st Year

    23 82.14%
  • Wilbur Cooper, SP (1912-1926) - 4th Year

    15 53.57%
  • Stan Coveleski, SP (1912, 1916-1928) - 2nd Year

    25 89.29%
  • Gavvy Cravath, RF (1908-1909, 1912-1920) - 10th Year

    6 21.43%
  • Bill Doak, SP (1912-1924, 1927-1929) - 1st Year

    1 3.57%
  • Johnny Evers, 2B (1902-1917, 1922, 1929) - 9th Year

    9 32.14%
  • Jack Fournier, 1B (1912-1918, 1920-1927) - 3rd Year

    2 7.14%
  • Larry Gardner, 3B (1908-1924) - 6th Year

    2 7.14%
  • Wally Gerber, SS (1914-1915, 1917-1929) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Hank Gowdy, C (1910-1917, 1919-1925, 1929-1930) - 1st Year

    2 7.14%
  • Heinie Groh, 3B (1912-1927) - 3rd Year

    17 60.71%
  • George Harper, RF (1916-1918, 1922-1929) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Harry Hooper, RF (1909-1925) - 5th Year

    6 21.43%
  • Baby Doll Jacobson, CF (1915, 1917, 1919-1927) - 3rd Year

    0 0%
  • Ed Konetchy, 1B (1907-1921) - 9th Year

    4 14.29%
  • Tommy Leach, 3B/CF (1898-1915, 1918) - 13th Year

    17 60.71%
  • Rube Marquard, SP (1908-1925) - 5th Year

    5 17.86%
  • Carl Mays, SP (1915-1929) - 1st Year

    14 50.00%
  • Lee Meadows, SP (1915-1929) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Johnny Mostil, CF (1918, 1921-1929) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Art Nehf, SP (1915-1929) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Del Pratt, 2B (1912-1924) - 6th Year

    4 14.29%
  • Ed Reulbach, SP (1905-1917) - 13th Year

    2 7.14%
  • Ray Schalk, C (1912-1929) - 1st Year

    7 25.00%
  • Bob Shawkey, SP (1913-1926) - 3rd Year

    2 7.14%
  • Urban Shocker, SP (1916-1928) - 2nd Year

    10 35.71%
  • Jack Smith, CF/OF (1915-1929) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Billy Southworth, RF (1913, 1915, 1918-1927, 1929) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Joe Tinker, SS (1902-1916) - 14th Year

    7 25.00%
  • Hippo Vaughn, SP (1908, 1910-1921) - 9th Year

    6 21.43%
  • Bobby Veach, LF (1912-1925) - 5th Year

    11 39.29%
  • Ken Williams, LF (1915-1929) - 1st Year

    2 7.14%
  • Ivey Wingo, C (1911-1926, 1929) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Joe Wood, SP (1908-1915, 1917, 1919-1920) - 8th Year

    3 10.71%
  • Ross Youngs, RF (1917-1926) - 4th Year

    3 10.71%
  • None of the Above (Blank Ballot)

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 112

Thread: BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1934

  1. #81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mwiggins
    Up until Gehrig burst on to the scene, has there been a better first basemen this century?

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    Nope. Between the Anson/Brouthers/Connor trio and then Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg (who's in just his second year in 1934), 1B really wasn't that much of an offensive position in those 30 or so years. Sisler, offensively was better than anyone, and he had a very well rounded skillset.
    Not so sure about that. Sisler's career OPS+ was 124.

    You've got three guys who are cleary better (Terry is still playing) and one guy who is even.

    Frank Chance - 135
    Bill Terry - 137
    Jack Fournier - 143
    Jim Bottomley - 124

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    Not so sure about that. Sisler's career OPS+ was 124.

    You've got three guys who are cleary better (Terry is still playing) and one guy who is even.

    Frank Chance - 135
    Bill Terry - 137
    Jack Fournier - 143
    Jim Bottomley - 124
    It's pretty easy to differentiate Sisler from this group:

    Sisler had:

    - 4000 more PA than Chance
    - 3000 more PA than Fournier
    - 2000 more PA than Terry (who is still active in 1934)
    - 700 more PA than Bottomley (who is still active in 1934)

    Sisler's 1916-1922 peak was also better than anything anyone else in this group did. During those 7 years, Sisler's average OPS+ was 157. Chance didn't even have 7 seasons where he had at least 400 plate appearances, and only had two seasons higher than Sisler's peak average anyway (and just barely higher). Fournier's average of his best 7 OPS+ seasons comes to 154, but they are not consecutive like Sisler, and in much fewer plate appearances than Sisler. Terry and Bottomley only had one season each in their entire careers where they exceeded Sisler's 7 year peak average (and just barely in each case).

    Sisler was also a better all around player than the rest. Only Chance was better at baserunning and Sisler was the best defender of the group.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    Sisler's 1916-1922 peak was also better than anything anyone else in this group did. During those 7 years, Sisler's average OPS+ was 157. Chance didn't even have 7 seasons where he had at least 400 plate appearances, and only had two seasons higher than Sisler's peak average anyway (and just barely higher). Fournier's average of his best 7 OPS+ seasons comes to 154, but they are not consecutive like Sisler, and in much fewer plate appearances than Sisler. Terry and Bottomley only had one season each in their entire careers where they exceeded Sisler's 7 year peak average (and just barely in each case).
    I am a big fan of Sisler and hope he gets in on the 1st ballot, but to be fair at least in the comparison to Chance (and possibly Fournier??), didn't Sisler play under a consistent 154 game schedule? IIRC, the seasons were much shorter during Chance's playing career.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    It's pretty easy to differentiate Sisler from this group:

    Sisler had:

    - 4000 more PA than Chance
    - 3000 more PA than Fournier
    - 2000 more PA than Terry (who is still active in 1934)
    - 700 more PA than Bottomley (who is still active in 1934)

    Sisler's 1916-1922 peak was also better than anything anyone else in this group did. During those 7 years, Sisler's average OPS+ was 157. Chance didn't even have 7 seasons where he had at least 400 plate appearances, and only had two seasons higher than Sisler's peak average anyway (and just barely higher). Fournier's average of his best 7 OPS+ seasons comes to 154, but they are not consecutive like Sisler, and in much fewer plate appearances than Sisler. Terry and Bottomley only had one season each in their entire careers where they exceeded Sisler's 7 year peak average (and just barely in each case).

    Sisler was also a better all around player than the rest. Only Chance was better at baserunning and Sisler was the best defender of the group.
    Yes, Sisler played longer, but it's not like Fournier and Chance were only slightly ahead of him in OPS+ for their careers. We know Sisler had an awesome peak, and then tailed off a lot because of a vision problems, but that's part of his career that has to be taken into account. His peak was also not as great as it seems, once taken into context.

    Despite the high OPS+ numbers during his peak, Sisler does not look as great at that time according to win shares, I suppose since it was the 1920s and you needed a lot of runs to win games then, as compared to when Chance and Fournier had their best seasons.

    WIN SHARES BEST THREE SEASONS
    Chance - 35-31-29 = 95
    Fournier - 34-29-28 = 91
    Sisler - 33-29-29 = 91
    Terry - 32-32-39 = 90

    WIN SHARES BEST 5 CONSECUTIVE SEASONS
    Chance - 143
    Terry - 142
    Sisler - 135
    Fournier - 127

    WIN SHARES per 162
    Chance - 29.86
    Terry - 26.17
    Fournier - 24.46
    Sisler - 23.02


    Other than the 7 year peak that you speak of, he was a pretty poor hitter for a firstbaseman in his other seasons, also a 7 year stretch.

    1924 - OPS+ 90
    1925 - OPS+ 109
    1926 - OPS+ 84
    1927 - OPS+ 100
    1928 - OPS+ 112
    1929 - OPS+ 98
    1930 - OPS+ 82

    As far as what you say about Sisler as a defender, hard to believe that he's the best defender of those four players. Sisler's a C- in win shares fielding. Chance is a B and Fournier is also a C-. Terry is an A+. Seems like it's more likely that he's the worst of the four (tied with Fournier) than the best of the four.

    Fielding win shares per 1000 innings played:

    Terry - 2.28
    Chance - 1.78
    Sisler - 1.35
    Fournier - 1.34

  5. #85
    As for Sisler's extra time over Fournier, Jack still beats him easily in adjusted batting runs, 313 to 250. Chance had 216 in 4,000 less PA, and Terry is already ahead of him with 280 ABR coming into the 1934 season. Unless he somehow has several bad years like Sisler had at the end, Terry will beat George as a career hitter.

  6. #86
    Sisler's offensive game was unique for a firstbaseman - high average, didn't walk much, not a ton of power, excellent speed, very good base stealer. More than 75% of his hits were singles.

    He was 5'11" and 170 pounds. I think's a pretty safe bet that if he had thrown righthanded instead of lefthanded he would have been playing somewhere else in the infield other than 1B.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    I am a big fan of Sisler and hope he gets in on the 1st ballot, but to be fair at least in the comparison to Chance (and possibly Fournier??), didn't Sisler play under a consistent 154 game schedule? IIRC, the seasons were much shorter during Chance's playing career.
    Yes, but that wouldn't nearly compensate for the 4000 plate appearances gap. Regardless of schedule, Chance was a part time player for most of his career.

    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    Yes, Sisler played longer, but it's not like Fournier and Chance were only slightly ahead of him in OPS+ for their careers. We know Sisler had an awesome peak, and then tailed off a lot because of a vision problems, but that's part of his career that has to be taken into account. His peak was also not as great as it seems, once taken into context.
    I agree that you can't ignore his performance after the vision problems, but you also can't ignore that 1) He had a better and longer peak than the others and 2) That he is way ahead in plate appearances than the others. You can't equate Chance's 5000 plate appearances or Fournier's 6000 to Sisler's 9000. Those are very large gaps. Sisler's career was almost twice as long as Chance's. Chance would have had to play 6-8 more fullish seasons to have as many plate appearances as Sisler. Had he done so, his OPS+ likely would have been significantly lower. This also ignores that Chance and Fournier were part time players for large portions of their careers (the majority in Chance's case), and thus again in shorter sample sizes, had an advantage over Sisler to keep their rate stats inflated. Is Benny Kauff also a better player than Sisler because he had a 149 OPS+ in just 3500 plate appearances? When does the difference in sample size matter? In sum, you just can't ignore the huge disparity in sample size, otherwise you're essentially rewarding the other players for having significantly shorter careers.

    EDIT: As mentioned, Chance had just 5000 plate appearances with an OPS+ of 135. In comparison, Sisler through his first 5200 plate appearances had a career OPS+ of 144. Fournier had just 6000 plate appearances with an OPS+ of 142. Sisler through his first approximately 6000 plate appearances had an career OPS+ of 141, almost identical to Fournier, and unlike Fournier came while playing exclusively full time. So are we just going to ignore that through roughly the same amount of plate appearances, Sisler played at the same, if not better level than Chance and Fournier? To hold otherwise would reward Chance and Fournier for significantly shorter careers where they were part time players for several years, and punish Sisler for a much longer career as well as ignore the fact that when pared down to a shorter length, he played at the same level as the other two.

    WIN SHARES per 162
    Chance - 29.86
    Terry - 26.17
    Fournier - 24.46
    Sisler - 23.02
    You make a good point with the other Win Share comparisons though the peak differences aren't much (and I'll have to go back and look at my win shares which are on another computer), but in respect to the last category, again, rate stats here can be misleading because Sisler played significantly longer than the others. Had they played as long as Sisler, their win share rates likely would have been quite lower.

    As for your point about defense, I just plain forgot about Terry's defense.
    Last edited by DoubleX; 01-14-2009 at 11:06 PM.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    you also can't ignore that 1) He had a better and longer peak than the others and 2) That he is way ahead in plate appearances than the others.
    I'm not so sure that he did have a better peak than the others:

    It seems like Chance clearly had a better peak, and Terry maybe too.

    WIN SHARES BEST THREE SEASONS
    Chance - 35-31-29 = 95
    Sisler - 33-29-29 = 91
    Terry - 32-32-39 = 90

    WIN SHARES BEST 5 CONSECUTIVE SEASONS
    Chance - 143
    Terry - 142
    Sisler - 135

    And if you stretch it out to seven consecutive seasons:

    Terry - 191
    Sisler - 189
    Chance - 177

    Hard to say that he had a longer and better peak than the others when he doesn't win any of the above three peak comps.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    6,399
    Don't forget that Sisler had a couple of years in his peak where the AL did not play a full schedule. Only 1939 games in 1919 and 122 in 1918. For example, his 1918 season is clearly better than any of Terry's, but I'm sure because he only played 114 games (out of 122), his WS total doesn't match up to Terry's best years.

    Though, on the other hand, whatever win shares he earned in 1920 probably should be discounted somewhat because of his absurd home-away splits that year.
    Last edited by mwiggins; 01-15-2009 at 06:34 AM.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    6,399
    A quick little comparison of the 4 National League first basemen that seem to be in the conversation for best of the 20th century. I'll use 6 seasons, since that's how many Chance was a relatively fulltime player. I'll use consecutive years, except for Fournier, who had some "interuptions" in the middle of his career.

    Chance (1903-1908): OPS+ (145); OWP (.735); 266 SB's; 4 Top 5's in OPS+; 4 Top 5's in OWP; 4 Top 5's in Batting Wins. Led league in SB's twice.

    Sisler (1917-1922): OPS+ (161); OWP (.796); 238 SB's; 4 Top 5's in OPS+; 6 Top 5's in OWP; 5 Top 5's in Batting Wins. Led the league in SB's 3 times, in Batting Wins once.

    Terry (1927-1932): OPS+ (145); OWP (.739); 38 SB's; 3 Top 5's in OPS+; 3 Top 5's in OWP; 3 Top 5's in Batting Wins.

    Fournier: OPS+ (157); OWP (.747); 73 SB's; 5 Top 5's in OPS+; 4 Top 5's in OWP; 5 Top 5's in Batting Wins.

    I think just on peaks, Sisler is the best first basemen in the National League this century, and the best we've seen in all of baseball between the Cap/Brouthers era in the last century and the modern slugging first basemen like Gehrig and Foxx.

    Sisler outhit the other three players. Fournier was close to Sisler with the bat, but Sisler had a large baserunning and defensive edge on him. Terry was the best defender of the bunch, and Chance the best baserunner, but Sisler was close in both areas. He certainly was the most complete of the 4 players. His only real weakness was his lack of walks, which I don't have that much of a problem with given his role with the team and the era he played in.
    Last edited by mwiggins; 01-15-2009 at 07:21 AM.

  11. #91

    Frank Chance moves to firstbase

    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    I am a big fan of Sisler and hope he gets in on the 1st ballot, but to be fair at least in the comparison to Chance (and possibly Fournier??), didn't Sisler play under a consistent 154 game schedule? IIRC, the seasons were much shorter during Chance's playing career.
    Not really. He became a regular player in 1903 under the last 140-game schedule. Sisler and almost all regular players of his time played one of those in 1919; Sisler and the majority played through 1918, a season about 10% shorter than that. That is, 1918 and 1919 have as much "shortening" as three 140-game schedules, eg 1901-1903.

    Chance debuted in 1898 but played catcher more than any other position (183 games) and he was frequently hurt. In five seasons under two 154-game and three 140-game schedules --not team games played-- he played in 307 games only. . . . In Frank Selee's first season as manager, Frank Chance led the "firstbase staff" with 38 games played, with staffmates at 31-22-19-18-12-3-2. (The sum is 145 player fielding games in 141 team games.) Next season Chance played 121 games teamed with six substitute players 8-6-6-3-2-1. Next season they expanded to 154 games for the third and final time.

  12. #92
    Thanks for the insights into scheduling from that era, Paul.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by mwiggins View Post
    I think just on peaks, Sisler is the best first basemen in the National League this century,
    Sisler played mainly in the American League.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by mwiggins View Post
    Terry was the best defender of the bunch, and Chance the best baserunner, but Sisler was close in both areas.
    So you are disputing these numbers that suggest that Sisler was not close to Chance as a fielder, and was not even in the same stadium with Terry as a fielder?

    Fielding win shares per 1000 innings played:

    Terry - 2.28
    Chance - 1.78
    Sisler - 1.35
    Fournier - 1.34

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,738
    Blog Entries
    4
    how are they coming up with those fielding win shares for 1B? If contemporary obseervations are taken seriously than it's hard to put much stock in a system that has George Sisler .01 better than Jack Fournier. Sisler was considered one of the best fielders to ever have played to that time and Forunier took years to get and hold a job at least in part becuase of his lack of fielding prowess.

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by PVNICK View Post
    how are they coming up with those fielding win shares for 1B? If contemporary obseervations are taken seriously than it's hard to put much stock in a system that has George Sisler .01 better than Jack Fournier. Sisler was considered one of the best fielders to ever have played to that time and Forunier took years to get and hold a job at least in part becuase of his lack of fielding prowess.
    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.

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by PVNICK View Post
    how are they coming up with those fielding win shares for 1B? If contemporary obseervations are taken seriously than it's hard to put much stock in a system that has George Sisler .01 better than Jack Fournier. Sisler was considered one of the best fielders to ever have played to that time and Forunier took years to get and hold a job at least in part becuase of his lack of fielding prowess.
    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.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    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.
    Very true. Someone from this very general time frame that comes to mind is Hal Chase.

  19. #99

    career playing time at one fielding position

    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    Doing a little more research, the problem with 3B may be even simpler than I thought. Using a database, I figured out how many folks had at least 7000 PA from 1876-1935 (the database doesn't include info before 1876). There were 92 such players.
    Beginning in 1871 but defining the problem differently, 122 players have worked at least 10.0 full seasons at one fielding position or at outfield. (The measure is FS equivalent fielding games.)

    48 outfield (90)
    22 firstbase (33)
    17 shortstop (24)
    12 secondbase (27)
    9 thirdbase (18)
    4 catcher (20)
    0 pitcher (1) - bobby mathews
    ---
    112 sum, or any one fieldpos (213)

    On second thought I have reported the number who surpass 8.0 full seasons in parentheses; there are 213 at all fielding positions.

    Here is the same table covering 1871-1905.

    22 outfield (36)
    7 firstbase (11)
    7 shortstop (10)
    4 secondbase (12)
    4 thirdbase (8)
    2 catcher (8)
    0 pitcher (1) - bobby mathews
    ---
    46 sum, or any one fieldpos (86)

    What about my hoary suggestion to considered SS is "center infield" as CF is "center outfield"?

    1871-1935
    10 LF (18)
    8 CF (20)
    6 RF (14)

    1871-1905
    4 LF (7)
    4 CF (10)
    3 RF (6)

    We see more CFs than LFs and RFs when the scope is restricted to earlier players with longer careers at one position. Otherwise no pattern is clear.

    The more important pattern is that we don't see many players with long careers at one fielding position, if we count the outfield as three positions. There is so much mobility among the outfield positions, only about half of the 10-season outfielders also played 10.0 full seasons in a particular outfield.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    So you are disputing these numbers that suggest that Sisler was not close to Chance as a fielder, and was not even in the same stadium with Terry as a fielder?

    Fielding win shares per 1000 innings played:

    Terry - 2.28
    Chance - 1.78
    Sisler - 1.35
    Fournier - 1.34
    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.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •