Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Al Simmons vs Al Oliver

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

  • Al Simmons vs Al Oliver

    Last one of these. This James comp never held up either.

  • #2
    If we are suppose to choose I would say it's no contest. Simmons was a far better defender and I would give him a pretty comfortable edge in offense too.
    "(Shoeless Joe Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning." -- Connie Mack

    "I have the ultimate respect for Whitesox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Redsox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country."--Jim Caple, ESPN (Jan. 12, 2011)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by chicagowhitesox1173 View Post
      If we are suppose to choose I would say it's no contest. Simmons was a far better defender and I would give him a pretty comfortable edge in offense too.
      Agreed. These few last ones must have been during James' experimental times... uff: uff: ass:
      "Chuckie doesn't take on 2-0. Chuckie's hackin'." - Chuck Carr two days prior to being released by the Milwaukee Brewers

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TomBodet View Post
        Last one of these. This James comp never held up either.
        Why do you believe this "comp" doesn't hold up?
        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
          Why do you believe this "comp" doesn't hold up?
          Because Simmons is an easy HOFer..very close (about 2 more good seasons away)from being an 'inner circle' HOFer. Oliver was a slightly better version of Steve Garvey.

          Comment


          • #6
            Exactly. Simmons was Great if not Hornsby level. Oliver was fine but he was Bill's go to comp for Bottomley, Zack Wheat and Al here. And the one guy who he was like-Manush-he said 'Cardenal'...

            Comment


            • #7
              I would be interested to know peoples opinions of an Oliver/Manush comp.

              Comment


              • #8
                Quite close, Al better glove, more power, Manush at his level otherwise. Manush was about his size too Fwiw.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Simmons/Oliver comparison is really about the nature of comparing players who played in vastly different eras where one player has much better offensive stats at least on a superficial level. This comparison really fascinates me and is one of the reasons I no longer compare players from different eras or create "all-time" lists because I have come to realize that when you have two payers separated by such a large time gap and separated by such desperate playing conditions there is simply no basis to make any kind of accurate comparison. Simmons has much flashier hitting stats. That is a fact. but this fact is NOT evidence that Simmons was a "better" hitter. They are certainly the same type of hitter, strong line drive hitters who didn't draw that many walks. Bill James compared them in the original Historical Baseball Abstract. The Simmons section was very different in the hardback and paperback editions of the Original Historical Abstract. The hardback version had a very short write up. The paperback edition had a long four page write up. In the long write James ends it with the following below.

                  Hard Cover Edition
                  Simmons 1.JPG


                  Paperback Edition
                  Simmons 2.JPG


                  Yet in the second Historical Abstract James seemed to have a change of heart. He didn't directly say it, but his updated ranking of the Simmons and Oliver says a lot IMO. He rated Simmons the #7 left fielder and he rated Oliver the #31 center fielder. That's quite a contrast between two supposedly similar hitters.
                  Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by willshad View Post
                    Because Simmons is an easy HOFer..very close (about 2 more good seasons away)from being an 'inner circle' HOFer. Oliver was a slightly better version of Steve Garvey.
                    Simmons was a HoFer for his time. This doesn't mean anything in comparison to Oliver who played in an entirely different era.
                    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sez youse. I begs to differ. Yeah you Can make comparisons, you can also do it better than he did there. Mr Schilling.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I am pretty sure that Simmons was considered one of, if not THE best player in baseball during his prime...on par with Ruth and Gehrig and Foxx. He obviously was not on their level, but was probably on the level of George Brett or Reggie jackson, if we are looking at contemporaries of Oliver.

                        Saying that Oliver would hit .400 in the 1920s has no basis in reality. Simmons was simply a MUCH better hitter during his prime, even in comparison to his era.

                        top 5 OPS+ scores:

                        Simmons 175 175 172 159 149
                        Oliver 150 137 137 136 132

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TomBodet View Post
                          Sez youse. I begs to differ. Yeah you Can make comparisons, you can also do it better than he did there. Mr Schilling.
                          Who is Mr. Schilling?
                          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by willshad View Post
                            I am pretty sure that Simmons was considered one of, if not THE best player in baseball during his prime...on par with Ruth and Gehrig and Foxx. He obviously was not on their level, but was probably on the level of George Brett or Reggie jackson, if we are looking at contemporaries of Oliver.

                            Saying that Oliver would hit .400 in the 1920s has no basis in reality. Simmons was simply a MUCH better hitter during his prime, even in comparison to his era.[

                            top 5 OPS+ scores:

                            Simmons 175 175 172 159 149
                            Oliver 150 137 137 136 132
                            Simply stating OPS+ scores doesn't prove anything since Oliver and Simmons played against different competition.
                            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Simmons has unfairly become a sabermetric whipping boy of sorts. Yes, his stats were 'inflated' somewhat, but we are talking about a guy who had a higher batting average AND more RBI than Ted Williams for their respective first 10 seasons..and he wasn't doing it in Fenway or the Baker Bowl.

                              At his peak he was closer to another Al than he was to Oliver..that being Al Pujols. or another one...Al Belle.
                              Last edited by willshad; 12-08-2012, 12:40 PM.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X