Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kid Nichols - How Good Was He?

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

  • nerfan
    replied
    Originally posted by KCGHOST View Post
    I've always thought highly of Nichols, but with recent mega-studs Maddux, Clemens, Martinex, and Johnson you know Nichols has to slide down. People always prefer players they have to those they haven't.
    This, Nichols is still top 15 for me barely.

    Leave a comment:


  • KCGHOST
    replied
    I've always thought highly of Nichols, but with recent mega-studs Maddux, Clemens, Martinex, and Johnson you know Nichols has to slide down. People always prefer players they have to those they haven't.

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by CTaka View Post
    I think the "glamorization", if it is there, starts with the deadball era. I disagree that 19th century players have been "glamorized/idolized" - to the contrary, I think they are more often dismissed as "irrelevant".
    Some boards think they're so irrelevant they separate them into their own forum

    Leave a comment:


  • CTaka
    replied
    Originally posted by STLCards2 View Post
    Oh come on, there are just as many if not more guys around here who glamorize/idolize old players and come up with any reason possible to make current players look bad. Many completely ignore LQ all together including integration, etc. which is way more laughable than putting Nichols down a few slots.

    The biases run both ways.
    I think the "glamorization", if it is there, starts with the deadball era. I disagree that 19th century players have been "glamorized/idolized" - to the contrary, I think they are more often dismissed as "irrelevant".

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by CTaka View Post
    Maybe because he hasn't had a great season in the past couple of years?

    I think part of it is a bias against 19th century players. Some have a feeling of "it was a different game then, different conditions, so since I don't know how to account for that, I'll just rate them low."
    Oh come on, there are just as many if not more guys around here who glamorize/idolize old players and come up with any reason possible to make current players look bad. Many completely ignore LQ all together including integration, etc. which is way more laughable than putting Nichols down a few slots.

    The biases run both ways.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTaka
    replied
    Originally posted by STLCards2 View Post
    Well, he had been running near 13- 15 in past years. I wonder why he is sliding?
    Maybe because he hasn't had a great season in the past couple of years?

    I think part of it is a bias against 19th century players. Some have a feeling of "it was a different game then, different conditions, so since I don't know how to account for that, I'll just rate them low."

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    BBFers are
    trying to tag him
    as an irrelevant old-timer
    Could be, but it sems to me like a lot of the most vocal massive LQ adjusters have been around less, not more lately.

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by STLCards2 View Post
    Well, he had been running near 13- 15 in past years. I wonder why he is sliding?
    BBFers are
    trying to tag him
    as an irrelevant old-timer

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by CTaka View Post
    In the most recent "greatest player by position" thread, Nichols did not crack the top 15. And I believe in a recent "greatest pitchers" thread, he also did not make the top 15 and while getting some support, did not appear to be a lock to make the top 20 had that thread not died. I've got him around #10 - maybe that's a slot or two too high, but not making the top 15 or top 20 just seems too low to me. He pitched during a high offensive era in which many pitchers gave up a lot of runs. And, as was already mentioned, he pitched very well when the pitching mound was 50 feet from home and as well (or better if using ERA+) when it was moved to 60 feet, 6 inches in 1893. I get the impression he would have been a great pitcher in any era. I get the sense that he is a bit of a victim from a 19th century bias.
    Well, he had been running near 13- 15 in past years. I wonder why he is sliding?

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by Buzzaldrin View Post
    It's a shame that Nichols left the majors to own and manage Kansas City in 1902 and 1903. He very likely would have 400 career wins had he not done so, and would consequently get more love.
    And had he got more than 94% of average run support, compared with Matty's and Spahn's 108%.
    I have him at about ninth

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    who ranks Nichols where?

    The Hall of Merit ranks Nichols number six among pitchers who worked primarily 1893 to 1923, behind Johnson, Young, Alexander, Williams, and Mathewson. Ranking all 63 member pitchers is one matter for this fall, with discussion now open and election probably next month. (Pitchers Combined Ballot Discussion)


    The Top 100 Pitchers project, last year in the Hall of Fame forum, selected pitchers in ten tiers of size twenty. There was no ranking within tiers but the numbers of votes for election to the first tier shows two clear gaps, one between 15 and 16, another between 17 and 18.

    Nichols and Sandy Koufax are the two who evidently rank 16 and 17 in some order. Here are the fifteen clearly ahead of them. (Choosing Tier 1, closed)


    Top 15 inferred from Top 100 Pitchers, tier 1
    Young, Mathewson, Johnson, Alexander
    Grove, Paige, Feller, Spahn
    Gibson, Seaver, Carlton
    Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Martinez


    Nichols was the 13th pitcher named by the "Collaboration" to rank at least 500 players, underway in the Hall of Fame forum. There he follows twelve of the "Top 15 inferred" above and he precedes three: Feller, Gibson, and Carlton. (Collaboration, ranking now in the low 200s)


    Almost ten years ago Bill James in the New BJHBA named Nichols number nine in the major leagues. He did not consider the Negro Leagues (Paige) or the whole careers of Clemens and younger pitchers. Otherwise he put Nichols ahead of Feller and Carlton among the fifteen named above.


    add:
    In this forum last week about twenty readers voted Kid Nichols "15th Greatest Pitcher". Thus he follows fourteen of the "Top 15 inferred" above and he precedes one: Carlton. Numbers one to fifteen have been named by a continuing series of five-man rank-order ballots; the "16th" is now underway. (16th Greatest Pitcher)
    Last edited by Paul Wendt; 09-24-2009, 12:02 PM. Reason: add "15th Greatest Pitcher" poll

    Leave a comment:


  • CTaka
    replied
    Originally posted by STLCards2 View Post
    Seems to me like Nichols is almost always in the top 13 or so when we do those polls.
    In the most recent "greatest player by position" thread, Nichols did not crack the top 15. And I believe in a recent "greatest pitchers" thread, he also did not make the top 15 and while getting some support, did not appear to be a lock to make the top 20 had that thread not died. I've got him around #10 - maybe that's a slot or two too high, but not making the top 15 or top 20 just seems too low to me. He pitched during a high offensive era in which many pitchers gave up a lot of runs. And, as was already mentioned, he pitched very well when the pitching mound was 50 feet from home and as well (or better if using ERA+) when it was moved to 60 feet, 6 inches in 1893. I get the impression he would have been a great pitcher in any era. I get the sense that he is a bit of a victim from a 19th century bias.

    Leave a comment:


  • Buzzaldrin
    replied
    It's a shame that Nichols left the majors to own and manage Kansas City in 1902 and 1903. He very likely would have 400 career wins had he not done so, and would consequently get more love.

    He was also amazingly consistent, and out Younged Cy Young in the 1890s- seven 30 win seasons is more than anyone else ever had.

    Leave a comment:


  • RyanExpress30
    replied
    Behind only Young from 1890 to 1905.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aqua
    replied
    I've got Nichols ranked #10, between Seaver and Martinez.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X