Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Frank Chance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    Boston won in 1877-78 after winning 1872-75 in the NAPBBP, six in seven seasons. That one may be called inherited.
    Chicago won in 1880-82 and 1885-86, five in seven years, certainly a homegrown dynasty.
    Boston won in 1891-93 and 1897-98, five in eight years.

    Chicago hired manager Frank Selee when Boston let him go after the 1901 season. The Cubs to be had finished 10 and 33 wins below .500 in 1900 and 1901. Before he was elected to the Hall of Fame (1999), his success building the Chicago champions was an important section two on Selee's resume. He left in poor health midway through the 1905 season, having finished one below, 16 above, and 33 wins above .500 in three full seasons.

    --
    Selee inherited Chance and Kling. He assembled Tinker and Evers (two-thirds of the trio of bearcubs), Slagle and Schulte (two-thirds of the S outfield), and pitchers Brown, Reulbach, Lundgren, Weimer, Wicker, and Briggs.

    Under Chance, two deals with Cincinnati brought of Sebring and 3b Steinfeldt for p Weimer and pitcher Overall plus $2000 for p Wicker. One deal with Brooklyn brought of Sheckard for p Briggs, 3b Casey, of Maloney, Jack McCarthy, and $2000.
    Sometime during 1905 they(Chance?) purchased p Jack Pfiester from the minors and during 1906 they picked up over-the-hill Jack Taylor for half of a good season.
    That was good work. Probably it would benefit from a clever layout.
    I should have qualified my statement; Chance's Cubs were the first NL dynasty in "modern" baseball history (if you define "modern" as 1901 on).

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    Chance was the player-manager of a truly great team; the first NL "dynasty".
    Boston won in 1877-78 after winning 1872-75 in the NAPBBP, six in seven seasons. That one may be called inherited.
    Chicago won in 1880-82 and 1885-86, five in seven years, certainly a homegrown dynasty.
    Boston won in 1891-93 and 1897-98, five in eight years.

    Chicago hired manager Frank Selee when Boston let him go after the 1901 season. The Cubs to be had finished 10 and 33 wins below .500 in 1900 and 1901. Before he was elected to the Hall of Fame (1999), his success building the Chicago champions was an important section two on Selee's resume. He left in poor health midway through the 1905 season, having finished one below, 16 above, and 33 wins above .500 in three full seasons.

    --
    Selee inherited Chance and Kling. He assembled Tinker and Evers (two-thirds of the trio of bearcubs), Slagle and Schulte (two-thirds of the S outfield), and pitchers Brown, Reulbach, Lundgren, Weimer, Wicker, and Briggs.

    Under Chance, two deals with Cincinnati brought of Sebring and 3b Steinfeldt for p Weimer and pitcher Overall plus $2000 for p Wicker. One deal with Brooklyn brought of Sheckard for p Briggs, 3b Casey, of Maloney, Jack McCarthy, and $2000.
    Sometime during 1905 they(Chance?) purchased p Jack Pfiester from the minors and during 1906 they picked up over-the-hill Jack Taylor for half of a good season.
    That was good work. Probably it would benefit from a clever layout.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by NineWorldSeries View Post
    It was a close call between options "C" and "D" here. Clearly, his exploits as either a player or manager don't make it to HOF status, but combined, it's very close. I went with "yes," but clearly, his double play teammates, Evers and Tinkers, clearly don't belong in the hall in my opinion.
    Evers belongs, IMO; he was a remakable defensive second baseman who put his share of runs on the scoreboard.

    Tinker isn't the worst SS in the HOF, but he's a stretch.

    Chance wasn't just a player AND a manager; he was a PLAYER-MANAGER. This is a lost concept; the last player-manager was Pete Rose. Before that, it was Don Kessinger, and before that, it was Frank Robinson. Kessinger was the only guy who was selected in mid-career; the others were superstars at the end who got the positions because their teams were down on their luck and they needed a shakeup in the press as well as in the dugout.

    And Chance was the player-manager of a truly great team; the first NL "dynasty". He is the most unique selection of any HOFer, when you look at him in that light. He's not like Gil Hodges, who can't stand on his own both ways, but who MIGHT add up to a HOFer both ways (in some eyes). He was a player-manager, who led his team to greatness, on the field and in the dugout. If there is a more "unique" HOFer, I can't think of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • NineWorldSeries
    replied
    It was a close call between options "C" and "D" here. Clearly, his exploits as either a player or manager don't make it to HOF status, but combined, it's very close. I went with "yes," but clearly, his double play teammates, Evers and Tinkers, don't belong in the hall in my opinion.
    Last edited by NineWorldSeries; 04-11-2009, 08:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mwiggins
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
    Right, but what exactly do you mean about Mattingly? if he were Chance, he'd be a Hall of famer? It just strikes me as odd. If Mattingly had Chance's resume he'd be in? Add Chance's skills to what Mattingly already was dong and he'd be in?

    Just a little confused.
    I meant that Chance was fairly comparable to Mattingly with the bat. And since Mattingly's obviously not a HoFer, so that doesn't seem to do much for Chance's case.

    But, if Mattingly had hit like he did, while also managing the best team of his era to multiple pennants and World Series championships, and if been a great baserunner, he would be a very deserving candidate. And that essentially describes Chance. Chance does have those items on his resume, in addition to his hitting.

    So that fact that Chance was really no better than Mattingly with the bat doesn't hurt his case, IMO. That's what I was trying to say.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Originally posted by mwiggins View Post
    No, I didn't say he was a victim of anything.
    Right, but what exactly do you mean about Mattingly? if he were Chance, he'd be a Hall of famer? It just strikes me as odd. If Mattingly had Chance's resume he'd be in? Add Chance's skills to what Mattingly already was dong and he'd be in?

    Just a little confused.

    Leave a comment:


  • mwiggins
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
    So Mattingly was a victim of playing when he did? How many others can we make that statement about. If only one player did what a HOFer did . . .
    No, I didn't say he was a victim of anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Originally posted by mwiggins View Post

    And Mattingly would be a deserving HoFer if he had been a player-manager with Chance's success and been a great baserunner.
    So Mattingly was a victim of playing when he did? How many others can we make that statement about. If only one player did what a HOFer did . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • mwiggins
    replied
    Originally posted by Freakshow View Post
    Code:
      Player            OPS+   G   OBP   SLG    PA  From  To
    -+-----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
      Keith Hernandez    139 1194  .403  .456  5150 1979 1986 
      Frank Chance       135 1287  .394  .394  5099 1898 1914 
      Don Mattingly      136 1171  .362  .497  5178 1984 1991
    That pretty much makes the case for Chance. Keith should be in the Hall, and Chances baserunning and managing at least equal's Keith's defense and additional longevity IMO.

    And Mattingly would be a deserving HoFer if he had been a player-manager with Chance's success and been a great baserunner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freakshow
    replied
    Originally posted by brett View Post
    From '79-'86 Hernandez played about as many games as Chance did in his career and Hernandez had about a 139 OPS+ for that span (about 1200 games I think).
    Code:
      Player            OPS+   G   OBP   SLG    PA  From  To
    -+-----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
      Keith Hernandez    139 1194  .403  .456  5150 1979 1986 
      Frank Chance       135 1287  .394  .394  5099 1898 1914 
      Don Mattingly      136 1171  .362  .497  5178 1984 1991

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark View Post
    --In terms of quality of play Chance was better than Mattingly and Hernandez - who in turn were clearly better than Grace (Grace is out of place in that grouping). His OPS+ is significantly higher, it is OBP heavy and he was a terrific baserunner. It is ONLY his lack of lingevity and not any lack of quality that brings Chance's worthiness as a player into question.
    --Part of his lack of playing time as due to his own durabilty issues (much of which came from his willingness to take a HBP). Alot of it was due to his concentrating on his managing career though. At that time managing paid better than playing - and obviously gave the possibility of a much longer career. John McGraw made much the same decison, although his managerial career was obviously muich more significant as he was able to continue and be successfull long after his playing career was over.
    From '79-'86 Hernandez played about as many games as Chance did in his career and Hernandez had about a 139 OPS+ for that span (about 1200 games I think).

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --In terms of quality of play Chance was better than Mattingly and Hernandez - who in turn were clearly better than Grace (Grace is out of place in that grouping). His OPS+ is significantly higher, it is OBP heavy and he was a terrific baserunner. It is ONLY his lack of lingevity and not any lack of quality that brings Chance's worthiness as a player into question.
    --Part of his lack of playing time as due to his own durabilty issues (much of which came from his willingness to take a HBP). Alot of it was due to his concentrating on his managing career though. At that time managing paid better than playing - and obviously gave the possibility of a much longer career. John McGraw made much the same decison, although his managerial career was obviously muich more significant as he was able to continue and be successfull long after his playing career was over.

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    A few of those others will go for his teammate Jimmy Sheckard, a very good batter with greater durability and very good longevity. Some sabrmetrics estimate that Sheckard was one of the best leftfielders ever --"historically great", we commonly say here. I don't know of any that make Frank Chance outstanding, much less a defensive genius.
    Sheckard has a pretty good hall of fame case.

    His 120 OPS+ was built on a 112 relative on-base percentage which would make him worth a little more with the bat, like 125 or so. He stole bases. He apparently had speed and he is at least the best per-game defensive left fielder in history.

    If he had another 200 games, I think he would be of sure-fire hall of fame value.

    Chance is like Mark Grace, or Don Mattingly or Keith Hernandez with far less playing time. Going 2 for 4 in world series as a manager is making him a borderline hall of fame manager, though he only got to 900 or so wins.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    One thing Chance did as a manager was to keep his team at or very near the top for several years. Even with a good corps of players (and Chance had that, to be sure), keeping a team that sharp isn't easy. One thing he had to deal with was that his keystone combo didn't really get along on a personal level, but somehow he and they managed to keep it together on the field.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chadwick
    replied
    Almost certainly the toughest player/manager (not "player-manager") candidate to judge as he's borderline in both categories.

    I'm not sure that I'm ready to give a player-manager extra credit because the player also managed or the manager also played, though I admit that's not a hard "no."

    I'm curious to what extent Chance helped build his championship clubs as most of the key pieces (including himself) had been brought in by Frank Selee. I've read that owner Charles Murphy acted as his own business manager, but that he regularly consulted Chance before making his moves; it sounds to me as if Murphy, not Chance, however, was acting in the capacity of the GM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X