Announcement

**Gee Walker** · 07-28-2007, 04:06 PM

Well, you have to give the guy a zillion breaks in order for him to be considered a top-tier 1B.

Sisler's closest comparisons include seven Hall of Famers, but the top three are Heinie Manush, Zach Wheat, and Kiki Cuyler, none of whom are considered top-rank HOF outfielders.

His career OPS+ is 124. I really don't think that's out of line with what an average first baseman should be putting up as offensive numbers.

Sisler was all about batting average. He's remembered today for a couple gaudy .400 seasons and for holding the single-season hits record for over 80 years. But his BA is almost as high as his OBP. He had a good three-year run as a slugger, helped by Sportsman's Park and the clean baseball, and actually led the American League in Total Bases in 1920 - you could win a lot of bets on that stat! When Babe Ruth had his mysterious disease in 1922, Sisler had his last great year and won an MVP. His glove work at first was apparently amazing, but nobody's ready to put Keith Hernandez in the Hall of Fame, and in my opinion, Hernandez had a better career, but a shorter peak, than Sisler.

His years following his eye disease aren't pretty - adjusted for era and park, they look like Enos Cabell. He accumulated 1314 hits after his eye disease, making his raw totals look good. He's better than George Kelly and Jim Bottomley, but gets blown away by the real first basemen that followed him - Gehrig and Foxx and Greenberg.

Babe Ruth/George Sisler------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1915

-------------1923

------------------1929

Sisler Joins The Boston Braves - May 29, 1928: Sisler/Rogers Hornsby

**AstrosFan** · 07-28-2007, 04:14 PM

Sisler is seen by his contemporaries as an amazing defensive first baseman, and by metrics as just an average defensive first baseman. The explanation most often given is that Sisler was great at his peak, but the eye trouble turned him into a subpar defender. Contemporaries will remember him for what he looked like at his best, while most defensive metrics make no attempt to factor peak value into the equation (I think PCA does).

The Babe and the Sizzler:

Babe Ruth/George Sisler----------------------------------------------------------------------------------George Sisler/Babe Ruth
May 14, 1924, Yankee Stadium---------------------------------------------------------------------------1922, Sportsman's Park

October 4, 1924: George Sisler, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb at the first game of the 1924 World Series at Griffith Stadium in Washington, D.C.

George Sisler, Browns' 1B, 1927,---BB-Reference------------------------------------------ Senators' 1B, 1928

Braves' 1B, 1930-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1917.

**Lin_Kuei_Fighter** · 07-28-2007, 04:46 PM

Wait, if I vote "He's not top 100" Means he really is top 100? I think he is top 100.

**Erik Bedard** · 07-28-2007, 05:05 PM

I think I've got him in the 80's.

**Lin_Kuei_Fighter** · 07-28-2007, 05:11 PM

Would you mind if I see your top 100?

**JRB** · 07-28-2007, 05:25 PM

Astros Fan: I think part of the disconnect between the two groups is the question whether you should judge a player by the standards of the era in which he played, or whether you should judge him by the standards of some later era.

In Sisler's day batting average was the main meaure by which players were judged, and Sisler had a run of 6 straight .340+ seasons, including two .400+ seasons, a 370+ season, and two other 350+ seasons. During this peak he not only hit for a great average, he also fielded spectacularly and was an excellent baserunner who led the league 4 times in that category. It was this seemingly great peak that was engraved on the public consciousness.

You can judge Sisler if you want by the new stats and standards that didn't even exist when Sisler played, however its a bit like changing the rules of the game after it has already been played. I' m reminded of something Mickey Mantle once said around the late 1980's after players in a later era were being lionized for stealing a lot of bases. Mantle said if I knew they were going to make such a big deal about stealing bases, I would have also stolen a lot of bases.

I also think people probably had enough common sense during that era to understand that after Sisler had to sit out the 1923 season with eye trouble, after having batted .420 the previous season, the Sisler who returned in 1924 and afterwards had been prevented by circumstances beyond his control from playing at his peak, and that the Sisler of the previous peak years was the real Sisler.

Are fielding metrics really reliable? I question that assumption. I think opinions of unbiased and reliable contemporaries may be more accurate.

c JRB

**ChrisLDuncan** · 07-28-2007, 05:34 PM

A first basemen with a career .287 EqA? No I don't think he's top 100 material. At his peak he was able to string together six good seasons, and two very good ones (20 and 22/19 depending on how you evaluate his defense in each season) I do not feel that he was one of the greatest defensive first basemen ever. I don't even think he's as good as Keith Hernandez, who has a .301 EqA and actually has some substance to his glove.

**AstrosFan** · 07-28-2007, 05:34 PM

I think Sisler's fielding, taken as a whole, is not anywhere near all-time great, but he may have been an excellent fielder in his 1917-22 peak.

Sisler gets a lot of flak for his failing to walk and his lack of power. The problem is, he's not just a bad walker and mediocre power hitter for the modern era, he's bad and mediocre at each for his era as well. I'm not docking him because he wasn't a great sabermetrics batter. He just wasn't good at drawing walks or hitting for power.

**AstrosFan** · 07-28-2007, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Lin_Kuei_Fighter View Post

Wait, if I vote "He's not top 100" Means he really is top 100? I think he is top 100.

If you think he's in the 41-100 range, just stay out of the poll. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts on Sizzler, but the poll is for the opposite sides of the issue.

**JRB** · 07-28-2007, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by AstrosFan View Post

I think Sisler's fielding, taken as a whole, is not anywhere near all-time great, but he may have been an excellent fielder in his 1917-22 peak.

Sisler gets a lot of flak for his failing to walk and his lack of power. The problem is, he's not just a bad walker and mediocre power hitter for the modern era, he's bad and mediocre at each for his era as well. I'm not docking him because he wasn't a great sabermetrics batter. He just wasn't good at drawing walks or hitting for power.

Even by sabermetrics standards he was outstanding at his 1917-22 pre eye problem peak. Per the official encylopedia he had OPS+ of 163, 159, 153, 179, 137, and 169, for an average OPS+ of 160 per year.

By comparison, in his peak years of 1934 to 1940 slugger Hank Greenberg had a yearly average of 164+ per year. During his peak Sisler was renowned for making spectacular fielding plays and getting to balls no one else could get to, and he was considered by many the best ever at his position. Cobb said that Sisler's reflexes were unbelievable.

So, in his peak Sisler gives you great fielding, outstanding baserunning, and a hitter almost as productive by modern standards as a Hank Greenberg.

c JRB

**brett** · 07-28-2007, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by JRB View Post

Even by sabermetrics standards he was outstanding at his 1917-22 pre eye problem peak. Per the official encylopedia he had OPS+ of 163, 159, 153, 179, 137, and 169, for an average OPS+ of 160 per year.

By comparison, in his peak years of 1934 to 1940 slugger Hank Greenberg had a yearly average of 164+ per year. During his peak Sisler was renowned for making spectacular fielding plays and getting to balls no one else could get to, and he was considered by many the best ever at his position. Cobb said that Sisler's reflexes were unbelievable.

So, in his peak Sisler gives you great fielding, outstanding baserunning, and a hitter almost as productive by modern standards as a Hank Greenberg.

c JRB

Let me use this post as a springboard. It will let me bring up some pros and cons about Sisler and at least figure this whole thing out for myself.

What I knew about Sisler 10 years ago was that he hit .400 twice, was considered by many to be more valuable than Babe Ruth in 1920, and that in 1969 he was voted the greatest NL and greatest living first baseman.

The cons are basically that his value as a hitter, both peak and career OPS+ of 160 and 124 are pretty low compared to historic first basemen. His peak is almost identical to Don Mattingly or Will Clark, and he is below them in career rates. Historically, first baseman produce about 128. 160 is real good. Foxx' peak 6 years were 179. A 160 is 32 points above an average first baseman (historically) and about 59 above a replacement level guy.

That would be comparable to a shortstop doing 123 versus a replacement-in line with Ripken's 6 year peak.

His first 10 years he was at 138 (which is Will Clark's career rate). Dick Allen was 156 for about an equivalent of 11-12 full years.

Some plusses to consider.

First baseman did not produce near 128 OPS+ during Sisler's peak.

The average first baseman in 1917 only put up an OPS+ of 110.

Here's some straight averages of the other 7 primary first baseman during Sisler's big 6 years:

1917: 110
1918: 111
1919: 112
1920: 93
1921: 93
1922: 110

Total average of primary first basemen: 105

So comparing him to an historical average of 128 is not accurate.

The best explanation is that first base was a more premium defensive position at that time, maybe on par with the role of a modern third baseman.

If he was a great fielding first baseman, a 124 OPS+ with great base-stealing moves him up a lot.

George Brett was 135 and a good fielder and baserunner, but not equal to Sisler in either category.

Ron Santo was 125 for his career.

If first base was truly RELATIVELY equivalent to a third baseman of a later era, then I think I'm gonna have to move Sisler up.

Lets say he's about on par with a modern gold glove third baseman with a 118 OPS+ for his career and 154 for his peak, and excellent baserunning.

That would be a lot like Ken Boyer plus very good steal totals.

So maybe I could move him to the 50s.

I don't actually think that first base was THAT imporant (as much as a modern third baseman) I think in part it was just a weak position for the time.

**JRB** · 07-28-2007, 07:17 PM

On the issue of whether George Sisler is still a top 40 player all time I'm not sure. I think the only way he might still be top 40 is if you elect to judge him by his performance prior to his eye problem.

I do feel comfortable in asserting my opinion that Sisler was the best first baseman of the first quarter of the 20th Century.

To keep things in historical perspective it should be noted that in the Hall of Fame balloting in 1938 Sisler finished second to Grover Cleveland Alexander, and though he missed out he did finish ahead of Willie Keeler and Eddie Collins.

In the 1939 Hall of Fame selection Sisler finished first in the Hall of Fame balloting with 235 votes, finishing ahead of Eddie Collins with 213 votes and Willie Keeler with 207 votes. I think there is a consensus that Collins is a top 40 all time player. It appears that the only players chosen for the HOF before Sisler were Cobb, Ruth, Wagner, Mathewson, Johnson, Lajoie, Speaker, Young, and Alexander, which demonstrates the incredibly high esteem in which Sisler was held by those who actually saw him play.

c JRB

**538280** · 07-28-2007, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by JRB View Post

Astros Fan: I think part of the disconnect between the two groups is the question whether you should judge a player by the standards of the era in which he played, or whether you should judge him by the standards of some later era.

In Sisler's day batting average was the main meaure by which players were judged, and Sisler had a run of 6 straight .340+ seasons, including two .400+ seasons, a 370+ season, and two other 350+ seasons. During this peak he not only hit for a great average, he also fielded spectacularly and was an excellent baserunner who led the league 4 times in that category. It was this seemingly great peak that was engraved on the public consciousness.

You can judge Sisler if you want by the new stats and standards that didn't even exist when Sisler played, however its a bit like changing the rules of the game after it has already been played. I' m reminded of something Mickey Mantle once said around the late 1980's after players in a later era were being lionized for stealing a lot of bases. Mantle said if I knew they were going to make such a big deal about stealing bases, I would have also stolen a lot of bases.

I also think people probably had enough common sense during that era to understand that after Sisler had to sit out the 1923 season with eye trouble, after having batted .420 the previous season, the Sisler who returned in 1924 and afterwards had been prevented by circumstances beyond his control from playing at his peak, and that the Sisler of the previous peak years was the real Sisler.

Are fielding metrics really reliable? I question that assumption. I think opinions of unbiased and reliable contemporaries may be more accurate.

c JRB

JRB, I don't really agree with your analogy that judging Sisler by what we now know about values of events in the game is like changing the rules. The object of baseball is to win the game. All the players are doing what they can to win the game. What Sisler does as a player (or any player from any era does) should be evaluated keeping that in mind-that the goal of the game is to win. Things about the game have changed since then-but the basis on which new stats are created has not. The relationship of OPS to runs scored has not changed all that much over the years. It is clear that what is important in scoring runs today was important then as well. Sisler's contributions as a winning player were just not up to what many thought they were back then, and it is not changing the rules one bit to realize this. The game has always been about winning.

I do think, however, that there are a few factors that we should keep in mind when evaluating older players that aren't really important in the modern game. One of them is that 1Bmen had a heavier defensive responsibility back then, and Sisler probably deserves a little more defensive credit because of that. That's not going to make him even close to a top 40 player in my book and not even a top 100 one, but still those things should be kept in mind.

**dgarza** · 07-28-2007, 07:39 PM

How do we vote if we think he's a Top 41-100 player?
I mean is he really that polarizing?

I have him about 58-62.

George Sisler is a top 40 player	44.09%	41 votes
George Sisler is not a top 40 player	55.91%	52 votes

Announcement

Polarizing Player: George Sisler

Polarizing Player: George Sisler

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Ad Widget