Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1934

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

  • #91
    Frank Chance moves to firstbase

    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.

    Comment


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

      Comment


      • #93
        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.
        .


        19th Century League Champion
        1900s League Champion
        1910s League Champion

        1930s League Division Winner
        1950s League Champion
        1960 Strat-O-Matic League Regular Season Winner
        1960s League Division Winner
        1970s League Champion
        1971 Strat-O-Matic League Runner Up
        1980s League Champion
        All Time Greats League Champion

        Comment


        • #94
          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
          .


          19th Century League Champion
          1900s League Champion
          1910s League Champion

          1930s League Division Winner
          1950s League Champion
          1960 Strat-O-Matic League Regular Season Winner
          1960s League Division Winner
          1970s League Champion
          1971 Strat-O-Matic League Runner Up
          1980s League Champion
          All Time Greats League Champion

          Comment


          • #95
            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.

            Comment


            • #96
              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.
              .


              19th Century League Champion
              1900s League Champion
              1910s League Champion

              1930s League Division Winner
              1950s League Champion
              1960 Strat-O-Matic League Regular Season Winner
              1960s League Division Winner
              1970s League Champion
              1971 Strat-O-Matic League Runner Up
              1980s League Champion
              All Time Greats League Champion

              Comment


              • #97
                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.

                Comment


                • #98
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    career playing time at one fielding position

                    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.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • --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.

                        Comment


                        • 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.
                          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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • Bill Doak and others

                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mwiggins View Post
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X