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.