Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bucketfoot Al

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

  • Bucketfoot Al

    You hardly ever hear his name. Seems he gets lost in the shuffle when talking about players of that time. Where do you guys rank him? How does he stack up with other players such as DiMaggio and Frank Robinson? Just curious what you all think.

  • #2
    I don't hold Simmons in such high regard. He played in an extremely heavy offensive era, and didn't walk. The big thing that impresses you when you look at Simmons in an Encyclopedia is his RBIs, but he got RBIs because Max Bishop had a .423 OBP, and because he played for an overall offensive juggernaut. He was a big out maker for his time, and was done as a great player by age 30. Spent five years as a below average player 1935-1939. Kind of like a glorified cross between Al Oliver and Andre Dawson. Well, he's better than those guys but not all that much. Not within miles of DiMaggio and F.Robinson
    Last edited by 538280; 04-06-2006, 05:53 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      --Simmons doesn't match up to DiMaggio or Robinson. He isn't miles behind for peak, but he is behind. Going beyond that, DiMaggio has a huge edge on defense and Robinson in longevity. I've got Simmons 6th amoung MLB LFers and probably outside the top 50 overall.

      Comment


      • #4
        I rank him somewhere around tenth at the left field position. I think his defense downgrades him some, but really it is more about that position being pretty stacked. He is one of the main reasons I love the A's. You have Foxx, Cochrane, AND him in the same lineup.
        I am the author of "Checks and Imbalances" and "The State of Baseball Management."

        Comment


        • #5
          --From everything I've read of Simmons he was a very good defensive leftfielder and alright in CF for that matter. Even I said he gave up alot of ground defensively to DiMaggio, it was based more on Joe being an outstanding CF than any criticism of Simmons defensive skills.
          --10 top 10 finishes in OPS+ is nice, but hardly serves to establish Simmons as one of the real elite hitters. He only had 3 top 5, with 3rd being his best finish. He hit for great average, but only had a couple years where he was a big power threat and his lack of patience hurt his OBP.
          --I don't think Simmons had nearly as good a career as Reggie Jackson. For peak value he is pretty close to Jackson, but he didn't sustain his best play nearly as longer as Reggie (Jackson was a great player from 1969-82, about twice as long as Simmons). Jackson was the best AL player of the 1970s and best slugger in baseball for that decade. Anybody making the same claim (or even top 5 in AL) for Simmons in the AL of the 30s would get laughed off the site.

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't really have in depth lists, but I do know that Simmons would be ahead of Jackson on my list of OFers. I have always thought that Simmons was an above average defensive OFer- capable of playing center or a corner OF position. I have always considered Jackson, on the other hand, to be below average in the field. Anyone care to enlighten me as to if I am wrong in this assumption? The stats at least favor Simmons in both fielding pct and range factor, plus, of course, the mere fact that Simmons played center has to say something regarding his ability.

            Simmons had 12 solid years, including a few spectacular ones. I would never say that he had a short peak, just because he kept playing longer than he should have. He started at age 22. Just because he home run total dwindled, it does not mean that he was not very, very productive as a hitter.

            And have we become so mesmerized by OPS, RC, and all these mathematical equations that we ignore RBI totals? I understand that they do in fact largely depend on the supporting cast, but 1800 RBIs (and 11 straight seasons of 100+) has to count for something, even if you are hitting in the best lineup ever created.

            Simmons leads Jackson in gray ink and that HOF monitor thing. Simmons did does the advantage in black ink(I would argue) because of the excellence of his peers. Nevertheless, Al was a better outfielder defensively and probably about Jackson equal, or slightly better, offensively.

            At the very least, you would have to rank them close. 50 slots ahead of Al? Don't know about that.

            Mark
            Last edited by Pghfan987; 04-06-2006, 07:35 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              --McGraw would have had very limited opportunity to see Simmons play. Its also possible the game had passed him by when he made that comment. McGraw never really embraced the modern style of play.
              --Mack got to see Simmons play plenty, but he might have been just a little bit biased. Three of his top 6 all time players were guys who played for him (Collins, Simmons and Cochrane). He also ranked Simmons ahead of Babe Ruth - as an all time player!. This in 1930 when Simmons was still just a young player and Ruth already established as a dominant slugger who changed the way the game was played.
              --Five years into their careers I've seen guys like Fred Lynn, Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, Don Mattingly, Jose Canseco, Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey and now Albert Puljos called the best player in the game. In each case, maybe they were for a moment (or a little longer in a couple cases), but that didn't stand the test of time. That a few people said that of Simmons at that point of his career means about the same thing as it did when these players got the same accolades.

              Comment


              • #8
                The highest paid player in the game by no means is the best player in the game. It might just be a guy who draws a crowd, or, in today's case, the highest paid player on the Yankees' roster. I believe Danny Tartabull was once the highest paid player in the game for a short while.

                Jackson was flashy. That is going to get him some extra $$.

                The mid 90s could become known as the McGwire-Sosa era, but I don't believe that anyone here would call either of those two better players than Bonds or Griffey.

                Mark
                Last edited by Pghfan987; 04-06-2006, 07:42 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  --Randy, I certainly agree that Simmons was pretty darned good. I did say earlier that he was the 6th best LF in MLB history. To me that seems pretty high praise. He just wasn't quite at the level of the real legends of the game, nor did he stay at the next level down as long as many other players.
                  --I don't agree with Chris that he is 50 spots behind Reggie. More like 20-25 IMO and there is some pretty tight bunching between them. One of them is a guy you mentioned, Sam Crawford. Heilman, on the other hand, is as far behind Simmons as Simmons is behind Jackson in my rankings. Harry was probably a little better hitter, but not nearly as good on the field or on the bases and also had a relatively short career.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by leecemark
                    --Randy, I certainly agree that Simmons was pretty darned good. I did say earlier that he was the 6th best LF in MLB history. To me that seems pretty high praise. He just wasn't quite at the level of the real legends of the game, nor did he stay at the next level down as long as many other players.
                    --I don't agree with Chris that he is 50 spots behind Reggie. More like 20-25 IMO and there is some pretty tight bunching between them. One of them is a guy you mentioned, Sam Crawford. Heilman, on the other hand, is as far behind Simmons as Simmons is behind Jackson in my rankings. Harry was probably a little better hitter, but not nearly as good on the field or on the bases and also had a relatively short career.
                    That's fair. There's no agenda here, just wanted to see what you guys thought about him being "glossed over" by us when looking at that era. As Bill pointed out, those who saw him play understood how good he was. Kinda confuses me that 538 won't consider peers accounts unless its a NgL player, and that he has Simmons 50 spots behind Reginald Jackson, but oh well; makes for good discussion.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      --McGraw would have had very limited opportunity to see Simmons play. Its also possible the game had passed him by when he made that comment. McGraw never really embraced the modern style of play.

                      No, Mark, but I can't fault you for saying that. Because Mack couldn't play baseball on Sundays, I believe he traveled with his team to NYC on Sundays, and played his Sunday games in Yankee Stadium, or the Polo Grounds. I think it was Yankee Stadium, and Connie had to pay the Yankees rent for the privelege of using their ballpark. And that being the case, why couldn't John McGraw watch Big Al on those occasions?

                      Also, McGraw might not have enjoyed the new power game, but he did master it and played that way from 1921 on. I put Mack, Huggins in the same category. Didn't prefer the new game, but they all adjusted and managed new style from the 20's on.


                      --Mack got to see Simmons play plenty, but he might have been just a little bit biased. Three of his top 6 all time players were guys who played for him (Collins, Simmons and Cochrane). He also ranked Simmons ahead of Babe Ruth - as an all time player!. This in 1930 when Simmons was still just a young player and Ruth already established as a dominant slugger who changed the way the game was played.

                      I agree that Connie overstated the case by placing Al over Babe, but my point is that Connie/McGraw were ONLY referring to 1930, as a moment in time in the game.

                      --Five years into their careers I've seen guys like Fred Lynn, Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, Don Mattingly, Jose Canseco, Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey and now Albert Puljos called the best player in the game. In each case, maybe they were for a moment (or a little longer in a couple cases), but that didn't stand the test of time. That a few people said that of Simmons at that point of his career means about the same thing as it did when these players got the same accolades.

                      Yes, I can see your point, Mark. I have heard the same thing said in their early careers of Cal Ripken, Don Mattingly, and Will Clarke. But their hitting fell off soon after that, and they remained good players, but couldn't sustain their early rave reviews.

                      But, having said that, Al Simmons carried his greatness a full 10 years. And that, I think, lifts him significantly over those you cited, with the exceptions of Thomas, Griffey, and Prince Albert. I think that once again, you have selected a set of players who are not the best examples of your point. You DO have one, but I always feel I could make your points better than you. Call it a massive egotism problem.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        --Okay Bill, I'll agree you have a massive egotism problem . See we can find common ground.
                        --One question, wouldn't the Giants have games of their own on the Sundays the A's played in NYC? Was McGraw in the habit of blowing off his own teams games to check out the AL action?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by leecemark
                          --Okay Bill, I'll agree you have a massive egotism problem . See we can find common ground.
                          --One question, wouldn't the Giants have games of their own on the Sundays the A's played in NYC? Was McGraw in the habit of blowing off his own teams games to check out the AL action?
                          I really didn't hear about Mack using the NY ballparks. But someone here on Fever spoke about it when we were talking about "No Sunday blue laws". I'll see if I can dig it up with a search.

                          Bill

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            02-25-2006, 04:44 PM
                            bkmckenna
                            Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005
                            Posts: 2,475


                            "it was not uncommon for the A’s to travel to Cleveland or Washington after their Saturday game and then slide to another city on Monday."




                            Maybe I was wrong. Bkmckenna says it was Cleveland/Washington, not NYC.
                            Last edited by Bill Burgess; 04-06-2006, 11:46 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 538280
                              There are many other factors. The atmosphere, the background, and probably a million other things that are just impossible to explain.
                              Here's some interesting stuff Chris... from http://www.stevetheump.com/HR_physics.htm

                              A ball that would travel 400 feet in "normal" conditions goes:

                              -- 6 feet farther if the altitude is 1,000 feet higher
                              -- 4 feet farther if the air is 10 degree warmer
                              -- 4 feet farther if the ball is 10 degrees warmer
                              -- 4 feet farther if the barometer drops 1 inch of mercury
                              -- 3.5 feet farther if the pitch is 5 mph faster
                              -- 30 feet farther if struck with an aluminum bat

                              * To hit a ball the maximum possible distance, the trajectory off the bat, should have a 35 degree angle.

                              * An average head wind (10 mph) can turn a 400-foot home run into a 370-foot routine out.

                              * A curveball that seems to break over 14 inches never actually deviates from a straight line more than 3.5 inches.

                              * There is no possible way (excluding softball) to throw a rising fastball that actually rises.

                              * Excluding meteorologically strange conditions, a batted ball cannot travel more than 545 feet.

                              * The collision of a bat and baseball lasts only approximately 1/1000th of a second.

                              * The "muzzle velocity" of a pitched baseball slows down about 1 mph every 7 feet after it leaves the pitcher's hand, that's a loss of roughly 8 mph by the time it crosses the plate.

                              * If you swing 1/100th of a second too soon, a ball will go foul down the left field line (right handed batter). 1/100th of a second too late and it's a foul in the right field seats, and the decision to swing has to happen in 4/100th of a second.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X