Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George Sisler vs. John Olerud

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

  • 1905 Giants
    replied
    Big Olerud fan, but Sisler here.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Sisler by a country mile.

    Leave a comment:


  • JR Hart
    replied
    Seriously??

    It's Sisler by light years.

    Leave a comment:


  • leagueleader
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    Sisler wins this one easily, mainly because he had 5 seasons that can be classified as 'great', and Olerud really only had 2. it's clear that Sisler's 'normal' level of play was superior to Olerud.

    I really don't get how someone can consider Olerud HOF worthy. He is basically Norm Cash, because his one amazing early season set high standards that he could not come close to for the remainder of his career. if you take out 1993, he is Mark Grace.
    Agree Sisler by a mile, it's kinda like comparing Jimmy Foxx to Walt Dropo who in 1950 did have 1 Hall of Fame type season

    Leave a comment:


  • Yankillaz
    replied
    My latest rankings have Olerud above Sisler, if I'm not mistaken. (My PC is undergoing surgery so my rankings file is on a hard drive that I don't have on this one, therefore, I can't say this for sure). But gut tells me that Sislers was better than Olerud. Now Olerud vs. Garvey or Sisler vs. Hernandez...that would be interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    1. GiambiJuice...you are an evil human being.
    2. I like Olerud...but Sisler wins this with room to spare.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Maybe I'll start an Olerud vs Garvey thread. Sisler had a pretty impressive win here.

    Leave a comment:


  • pheasant
    replied
    After adjusting for era, I have Sisler's 7 year hitting peak just squeaking by Olerud's hitting 7 year peak. Sisler was a better runner and defensive first baseman, so Sisler wins the 7 year peak battle by a decent margin. However, Olerud played MUCH longer. Olerud gets my vote here. Had Sisler had a 10-11 year peak, then I'd put him over Olerud.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
    1993 and 1999 were certainly outliers, but I think it's a bit unfair to Olerud to call them flukes. Olerud had a very solid career. He had plenty of other very good seasons (albeit not as good as 1993 and 1998). Olerud had a 10-year peak from 1993-2002, hitting .307/.414/.487/.901. Again his other seasons didn't quite approach 1993 and 1998, but several of them were excellent. During his 10-year peak he averaged over 100 walks per 162 games, to go with 21 HR, 97 RBI and 41 doubles - along with Gold Glove defense.

    A fluke is Brady Anderson in 1996 or Davey Johnson in 1973. Olerud was just an excellent hitter with two spectacular seasons and a bunch of merely very good seasons.

    With that being said, I'm going with Sisler.
    Olerud's problem is that with the ridiculous numbers being put up during his career, he just kinda seemed another guy. He only played in 2 all star games, and only received MVP votes in 2 seasons....only finishing twelfth in his second 'fluke' season. if he played now, he may be regarded as one of the top hitters in the game.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Originally posted by Second Base Coach View Post
    John Olerud is one of only a handful of players to have not one but two fluke seasons.

    He played exactly 1000 games after his second fluke season and hit .287

    Between fluke seasons he hit .289

    Before his first fluke season he hit .269

    And the Fan ELO Rater over at baseball-reference has him at #146 with Cesar Cedeno, Ralph Kiner, and Kirby Puckett

    I know Sisler was overrated for years (number #75 curently), but his record is better than Olerud's.
    1993 and 1999 were certainly outliers, but I think it's a bit unfair to Olerud to call them flukes. Olerud had a very solid career. He had plenty of other very good seasons (albeit not as good as 1993 and 1998). Olerud had a 10-year peak from 1993-2002, hitting .307/.414/.487/.901. Again his other seasons didn't quite approach 1993 and 1998, but several of them were excellent. During his 10-year peak he averaged over 100 walks per 162 games, to go with 21 HR, 97 RBI and 41 doubles - along with Gold Glove defense.

    A fluke is Brady Anderson in 1996 or Davey Johnson in 1973. Olerud was just an excellent hitter with two spectacular seasons and a bunch of merely very good seasons.

    With that being said, I'm going with Sisler.
    Last edited by GiambiJuice; 12-31-2012, 10:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Second Base Coach
    replied
    John Olerud is one of only a handful of players to have not one but two fluke seasons.

    He played exactly 1000 games after his second fluke season and hit .287

    Between fluke seasons he hit .289

    Before his first fluke season he hit .269

    And the Fan ELO Rater over at baseball-reference has him at #146 with Cesar Cedeno, Ralph Kiner, and Kirby Puckett

    I know Sisler was overrated for years (number #75 curently), but his record is better than Olerud's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by brett View Post
    I am saying that I am not sure that a good peak is a good thing given that two guys are otherwise equal in value. I mean perhaps its not a reason at all, unless it identifies a talent level that got lost due to extraneous circumstances.
    Right - it may be more about the "luck" of how the events were distributed or varied around the players true talent mean more than anything else, but in this case, the string of very seasons showed that Sisler had a lot more ability than Olerud - the injury really did him in.

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    Originally posted by Matthew C. View Post
    I never said that was the only reason I had him ahead - I just didn't list all of them.
    I am saying that I am not sure that a good peak is a good thing given that two guys are otherwise equal in value. I mean perhaps its not a reason at all, unless it identifies a talent level that got lost due to extraneous circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackaroo Dave
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    He seems a bit Manush if you ask me.
    In a memoir, Roger Angel writes of his childhood fascination with players' names--Mel Ott, Goose Goslin, etc. He said Heinie Manush made him think of someone sitting in a bowl of breakfast cereal.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomBodet
    replied
    Who--Olerud or Sisler? Sisler's raw totals are def. in the Manush area, if you will-but clearly George's peak was much higher.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X