Baseball Tonight and franchise players discussion

[Derwood]

1. cap anson

2. ernie banks

3. ron santo

4. ryne sandberg

5. gabby hartnett

6. billy williams

7. sammy sosa

8. fergie jenkins

9. billy herman

10. mordecai brown

 

why would you put Sosa so low?

[Post Count Padder]

I'd go:

 

Banks

Sandberg

Anson

Williams

Santo

Jenkins

Three Finger

Sosa

Grace

Hartnett

 

 

Thing is, I bet very few people think about Anson, despite the fact he was the first player to reach 3,000 career hits.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Sandberg, Santo, Williams, Banks, Jenkins should be the top 5, I'm having a hard time picking amongst them for a top 3.

[Derwood]

I'd go:

 

Banks

Sandberg

Anson

Williams

Santo

Jenkins

Three Finger

Sosa

Grace

Hartnett

 

 

Thing is, I bet very few people think about Anson, despite the fact he was the first player to reach 3,000 career hits.

 

that's because it's easy to dismiss 19th century player stats since the majority of those playing were very bad at baseball. Also, Anson played from age 19 to age 45, so his high career numbers are as much a product of longevity as anything else. that said, his peak years had some amazing OPS+ numbers (but again, were the pitchers he was facing any good?)

[Paladin Cecil]

The choices for the White Sox are in.

ESPN's choices:

1. Frank Thomas

2. Luke Appling

3. Nellie Fox

Viewers:

1. Frank Thomas

2. Nellie Fox

3. Carlton Fisk

 

My choices would've been the same as ESPN's choices.

[TruffleShuffle]

1. cap anson

2. ernie banks

3. ron santo

4. ryne sandberg

5. gabby hartnett

6. billy williams

7. sammy sosa

8. fergie jenkins

9. billy herman

10. mordecai brown

 

why would you put Sosa so low?

 

he had some very good years, but they came in an extreme offensive era. he only had one season with a WARP3 over 10. his career EqA is .292; hartnett's is also .292 and he played a tougher defensive position. billy williams was .299 and he was a cub his whole career. sandberg had 4 seasons of a WARP3 over 10, and i'm giving him a little extra credit since he was extremely productive until his wrist injury.

 

santo's translated stats (if he'd played in a pitching-hitting neutral era) were .275/.370/.506 with 431 homers and 460 doubles; combine that with very good fielding and it's pretty clear to me that he's ahead of sosa. i shouldn't have to explain #2 and #1.

[TruffleShuffle]

ugh, lol, omg, and whatnot at Ozzie Smith. defense be damned, if he's in the top 3 all-time in your franchise's history, I would hope your franchise isn't as old as the Cardinals

 

Now THERE is an overrated Cardinal. Good lord.

 

what's funny is that so many people call him overrated that now he's become very underrated. he saved about 1 run every 10 games with his defense, which is pretty damn awesome. he didn't have much power or hit for a great average, but he did draw a lot of walks and didn't strike out much. he bunted really well, was a great baserunner and situational hitter. you have to do a hell of a lot of things right to be a legitimate hall of famer with an 87 OPS+, but ozzie smith did all those things right.

[TruffleShuffle]

The choices for the White Sox are in.

ESPN's choices:

1. Frank Thomas

2. Luke Appling

3. Nellie Fox

Viewers:

1. Frank Thomas

2. Nellie Fox

3. Carlton Fisk

 

My choices would've been the same as ESPN's choices.

 

he played a good number of years with the philadelphia athletics, but i'd put eddie collins on the list. one could reasonably argue that he's the best 2B of all time.

 

fox was very good but not as good as appling or thomas. fisk's best years were with the red sox. ed walsh was really really good, but didn't pitch long enough. joe jackson was really really good, but didn't play long enough.

 

i'd go 1. thomas, 2. appling, 3. collins, though if i were ranking them in terms of their all-time greatness, collins is the easy choice.

[Paladin Cecil]

O.M.G. You are so right. I can't believe I forgot about Eddie Collins.

I'll re-phrase my choices now.

1. Frank Thomas

2. Luke Appling

3. Eddie Collins

[Jehrico]

ugh, lol, omg, and whatnot at Ozzie Smith. defense be damned, if he's in the top 3 all-time in your franchise's history, I would hope your franchise isn't as old as the Cardinals

 

Now THERE is an overrated Cardinal. Good lord.

 

what's funny is that so many people call him overrated that now he's become very underrated. he saved about 1 run every 10 games with his defense, which is pretty damn awesome. he didn't have much power or hit for a great average, but he did draw a lot of walks and didn't strike out much. he bunted really well, was a great baserunner and situational hitter. you have to do a hell of a lot of things right to be a legitimate hall of famer with an 87 OPS+, but ozzie smith did all those things right.

No one is saying Smith sucked...but for a franchise with as many titles as St Louis, someone like Smith shouldn't be in your top three of all time. Maybe barely cracking your top 10, but certainly not in the top 3.

[evv98]

1. cap anson

2. ernie banks

3. ron santo

4. ryne sandberg

5. gabby hartnett

6. billy williams

7. sammy sosa

8. fergie jenkins

9. billy herman

10. mordecai brown

 

why would you put Sosa so low?

 

he had some very good years, but they came in an extreme offensive era. he only had one season with a WARP3 over 10. his career EqA is .292; hartnett's is also .292 and he played a tougher defensive position. billy williams was .299 and he was a cub his whole career. sandberg had 4 seasons of a WARP3 over 10, and i'm giving him a little extra credit since he was extremely productive until his wrist injury.

 

santo's translated stats (if he'd played in a pitching-hitting neutral era) were .275/.370/.506 with 431 homers and 460 doubles; combine that with very good fielding and it's pretty clear to me that he's ahead of sosa. i shouldn't have to explain #2 and #1.

 

It's nitpicking a bit, but Williams spent two years in Oakland at the end of his career.

[Brian]

I wonder how many lists Neifi will be on, The Cubs are a lock, I'd guess the Rockies because that gold glove was huge... Tigers because his stretch to their world series run in '06 was the stuff of legends.

[daske17]

I wonder how many lists Neifi will be on, The Cubs are a lock, I'd guess the Rockies because that gold glove was huge... Tigers because his stretch to their world series run in '06 was the stuff of legends.

 

Lest we forget his season and a half with the Royals. Truly a legend was walking the field then.

[OleMissCub]

that's because it's easy to dismiss 19th century player stats since the majority of those playing were very bad at baseball.

 

Wrong. I'm sure that most of the people he played with and against were very good baseball players (for what baseball was back then). Baseball was MUCH MUCH more widely played by the common person back then than it is today. There were thousands upon thousands of city teams, and only the cream of the crop would get to play in the National League. It wasn't like people just walked off the street and said "gee, yuck yuck, I think I'll play that there baseball game for the Chicago White Stockings...hey Cap, look'e here at me!!" So I wouldn't dismiss his stats because the guys he played with were "very bad at baseball". How they would stack up against today's players, I'm sure the vast majority are less talented than modern players, no doubt.

 

However, I will dismiss his stats not because of his competition but because of the different rules back then. For the majority of his career, the pitching mound was 45 feet away, fouls weren't strikes, it took 9 balls to walk you, etc.

 

My mental "respect that stat" comes in around the turn of the 20th century with the introduction of the American League and formalization of the modern rules that we still use today.

[TruffleShuffle]

However, I will dismiss his stats not because of his competition but because of the different rules back then. For the majority of his career, the pitching mound was 45 feet away, fouls weren't strikes, it took 9 balls to walk you, etc.

 

My mental "respect that stat" comes in around the turn of the 20th century with the introduction of the American League and formalization of the modern rules that we still use today.

 

yes but under the rules that they played by during his era, offense was hard to come by, and yet he was very good at providing offense. it's not as silly as derwood's "everyone was very bad at baseball back then," but i don't think that different rules are a good reason to discount someone's ability as a player.

[Derwood]

However, I will dismiss his stats not because of his competition but because of the different rules back then. For the majority of his career, the pitching mound was 45 feet away, fouls weren't strikes, it took 9 balls to walk you, etc.

 

My mental "respect that stat" comes in around the turn of the 20th century with the introduction of the American League and formalization of the modern rules that we still use today.

 

yes but under the rules that they played by during his era, offense was hard to come by, and yet he was very good at providing offense. it's not as silly as derwood's "everyone was very bad at baseball back then," but i don't think that different rules are a good reason to discount someone's ability as a player.

 

offense was hard to come by?

 

I picked a random "good" year by Anson (1884) where Cap had an OPS+ of 176. He had teammates with OPS+ of 152, 169, 150, 150 and 184. In 1886 (the year Anson had 147 RBI), he OPS+'d 178. Other teammates had 152, 117 and 191. That's just looking at his own teammates.

[bukie]

I'm not sure how much that means in terms of Anson being the face of the Cub franchise, however. He played long before they were even known as the Cubs. This is why I'm much more apt to label Williams/Sandberg/Banks/Santo/Jenkins/Sosa as the face of the Cub franchise.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

However, I will dismiss his stats not because of his competition but because of the different rules back then. For the majority of his career, the pitching mound was 45 feet away, fouls weren't strikes, it took 9 balls to walk you, etc.

 

My mental "respect that stat" comes in around the turn of the 20th century with the introduction of the American League and formalization of the modern rules that we still use today.

 

yes but under the rules that they played by during his era, offense was hard to come by, and yet he was very good at providing offense. it's not as silly as derwood's "everyone was very bad at baseball back then," but i don't think that different rules are a good reason to discount someone's ability as a player.

 

offense was hard to come by?

 

I picked a random "good" year by Anson (1884) where Cap had an OPS+ of 176. He had teammates with OPS+ of 152, 169, 150, 150 and 184. In 1886 (the year Anson had 147 RBI), he OPS+'d 178. Other teammates had 152, 117 and 191. That's just looking at his own teammates.

does that mean the majority weren't very bad at baseball?

[Sammy Sofa]

Anson was one of the elite when it came to really hating black people. There's few who can touch him.

[Derwood]

However, I will dismiss his stats not because of his competition but because of the different rules back then. For the majority of his career, the pitching mound was 45 feet away, fouls weren't strikes, it took 9 balls to walk you, etc.

 

My mental "respect that stat" comes in around the turn of the 20th century with the introduction of the American League and formalization of the modern rules that we still use today.

 

yes but under the rules that they played by during his era, offense was hard to come by, and yet he was very good at providing offense. it's not as silly as derwood's "everyone was very bad at baseball back then," but i don't think that different rules are a good reason to discount someone's ability as a player.

 

offense was hard to come by?

 

I picked a random "good" year by Anson (1884) where Cap had an OPS+ of 176. He had teammates with OPS+ of 152, 169, 150, 150 and 184. In 1886 (the year Anson had 147 RBI), he OPS+'d 178. Other teammates had 152, 117 and 191. That's just looking at his own teammates.

does that mean the majority weren't very bad at baseball?

 

i didn't list the other OPS+'s, which were all pretty atrocious

[SouthSideRyan]

However, I will dismiss his stats not because of his competition but because of the different rules back then. For the majority of his career, the pitching mound was 45 feet away, fouls weren't strikes, it took 9 balls to walk you, etc.

 

My mental "respect that stat" comes in around the turn of the 20th century with the introduction of the American League and formalization of the modern rules that we still use today.

 

yes but under the rules that they played by during his era, offense was hard to come by, and yet he was very good at providing offense. it's not as silly as derwood's "everyone was very bad at baseball back then," but i don't think that different rules are a good reason to discount someone's ability as a player.

 

offense was hard to come by?

 

I picked a random "good" year by Anson (1884) where Cap had an OPS+ of 176. He had teammates with OPS+ of 152, 169, 150, 150 and 184. In 1886 (the year Anson had 147 RBI), he OPS+'d 178. Other teammates had 152, 117 and 191. That's just looking at his own teammates.

does that mean the majority weren't very bad at baseball?

 

It means Anson was on a really good team. OPS+ is relative to league averages, so saying that a bunch of his teammates had good OPS+s means little.

[TruffleShuffle]

However, I will dismiss his stats not because of his competition but because of the different rules back then. For the majority of his career, the pitching mound was 45 feet away, fouls weren't strikes, it took 9 balls to walk you, etc.

 

My mental "respect that stat" comes in around the turn of the 20th century with the introduction of the American League and formalization of the modern rules that we still use today.

 

yes but under the rules that they played by during his era, offense was hard to come by, and yet he was very good at providing offense. it's not as silly as derwood's "everyone was very bad at baseball back then," but i don't think that different rules are a good reason to discount someone's ability as a player.

 

offense was hard to come by?

 

I picked a random "good" year by Anson (1884) where Cap had an OPS+ of 176. He had teammates with OPS+ of 152, 169, 150, 150 and 184. In 1886 (the year Anson had 147 RBI), he OPS+'d 178. Other teammates had 152, 117 and 191. That's just looking at his own teammates.

 

and guess what? that team was good at hitting. they finished 12 games over .500 but had a pythag of 26 games over .500. are you suggesting that most players in the league had an OPS+ well over 100? because that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

if you'd arbitrarily chosen to look at the detroit wolverines that year, you would've seen OPS+'s of 24 (!!), 44 and 47, and those guys were starters. of course, that team was horrible.

 

the league average line over the course of anson's career was .277/.326/.369/.695. that does not suggest a great deal of offensive productivity.

[OleMissCub]

 

It means Anson was on a really good team. OPS+ is relative to league averages, so saying that a bunch of his teammates had good OPS+s means little.

 

These guys who played in the National League were terrific athletes for their time. The only professional team sport back then was baseball. Every town had a team and that town's best athletes played baseball, and nothing really else. Best players on the town teams (that town's best athletes) went to play semi-pro/indy league ball, the best players from those teams went on to the minor leagues in the Eastern League and Western League, the best players from those teams went on into the National League. There were less teams and roster spots were fewer back then, so it was especially hard to bust into the majors back then.

 

This is a pic of the New York Giants from the early 1890's. Those guys look to be some pretty strapping fella's.

 

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/5018/oldballid2.jpg

[SouthSideRyan]

Looks awfully white.

[TruffleShuffle]

nice handlebar mustache